Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV13060, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV13060 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 32
SARAH
MCCLAIN-FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. EASTSIDE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Defendant. |
Case No.: 20STCV13060 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: defendant’s motion to bifurcate |
|
|
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2020, Sarah McClain-Fowler
(“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Eastside Union School District
(“Defendant”), alleging seven causes of action stemming from alleged disability
discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate.
On May 26, 2021, Defendant moved for
summary judgment or adjudication in the alternative. On August 11, 2021,
the Court granted summary adjudication on the FEHA claims but denied it on the Labor
Code retaliation claim, finding among other things that Plaintiff did not fail
to satisfy the Government Claims Act as a matter of law. On January 27, 2023,
Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the remaining
claim, arguing again that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims
Act. The Court again rejected the argument and denied the motion on February
22, 2023.
On February 28, 2023, Defendant filed the
instant motion to bifurcate, requesting the Court to decide whether Plaintiff
satisfied the Government Claims Act before the substance of the retaliation
claim goes to a jury trial.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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 . . . 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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) “The court, in
furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will
be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause
of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any
separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues . . . .” (Id.,
§ 1048, subd. (b).) “It is within the discretion of the court to bifurcate
issues or order separate trials of actions . . . and to determine the order in
which those issues are to be decided.” (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v.
Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.)
DISCUSSION
As a matter of law, the Court has
already held that the claim requirement may be satisfied by mailing a package
of documents that contain allegations of retaliation, even if the documents are
not specifically labeled as a government claim and do not specifically identify
the Labor Code. (Feb. 22, 2023 Order re MJOP 3:19-4:22.) To the extent that
Defendant requests bifurcation to have the Court determine this issue as a
matter of law before the jury trial, the Court denies this request because it
has already made that determination. Defendant insists that the court decides
issues of law, whereas the jury decides issues of fact. However, Defendant does
not identify any issues of law that the Court has not already ruled on.
Defendant argues that in the prior
rulings, the Court held that Plaintiff’s compliance with the claims requirement
is a triable issue. The Court held that there was at the very least a triable
issue because that is the standard for a complaint to survive demurrer or
summary judgment. However, the Court was not reserving the abovementioned legal
issue for determination at a later date. The Court necessarily ruled on that issue
in ruling on the motions. To the extent there are factual disputes over
Plaintiff’s presentation of the claim, those should be resolved at the jury
trial, and Defendant has no authority holding otherwise.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is
DENIED.