Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCCV08461, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.

        If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Defendants Nidal Barakat [erroneously sued as Nidal Barakay] (“Nidal”), Barakat-Allah Management (“BA Management”), and Nuha Barakat, trustee of the Barakat Trust (“Barakat Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for this Court to order trial bifurcated in this action into a liability phase (Phase 1) and punitive damages phase (Phase 2) and to preclude evidence and/or reference to punitive damages and Defendants’ financial condition during Phase 1 of the trial. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§598, 1048(b); Civ. Code §3295(d).) Defendants move to bifurcate trial on the grounds of convenience, avoiding significant prejudice to Defendants, and judicial economy. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff Rodolfo Martinez (“Martinez”) (“Plaintiff”) filed its initial complaint in this matter. On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”). On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging twelve causes of actions against Defendants: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) breach of warranty of habitability; (4) negligence; (5) private nuisance; (6) violation of Civil Code §1950.5; (7) fraud (misrepresentation); (8) unfair business practices; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) retaliation; (11) constructive eviction; and (12) premises liability. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from his tenancy at real property located at 11722 Saticoy Street #7, North Hollywood, CA 91605 (“Subject Property”). (SAC ¶¶6, 7.)

On October 24, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion. On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On November 7, 2023, Defendants filed their reply.

The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.

Pursuant to Civil Code §3295(d), in a case where punitive damages are being claimed, “[t]he court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” (Civ. Code §3295(d), emphasis added.) “On its face, section 3295, subdivision (d) is a codification of the presumption that evidence of a defendant’s wealth can induce fact finders to abandon their objectivity and return a verdict based on passion and prejudice.” (Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1241.)

Defendants failed to present compelling evidence that the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted by bifurcating trial. Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate liability issues in this case will take very little court time in support of their motion to bifurcate.

However, pursuant to Civil Code §3295(d), this court must bifurcate trial upon Defendants’ application to preclude the admission of evidence of Defendants’ profits or financial condition. Further, bifurcating trial would avoid juror confusion and error in evaluating Defendants’ liability for compensatory damages under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and Defendants’ liability for punitive damages under the “clear and convincing” standard.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court