Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV36947, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36947    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Jo Anne Korngute filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Taylor Equities 15, LLC, and Gary David Spatz, asserting claims arising from injuries sustained as a result of two incidents: (1) on December 28, 2021, Plaintiff tripped over a broken sidewalk owned by City of Los Angeles, in front of a building owned by Taylor Equities; and (2) on March 30, 2022, Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by Gary Spatz.  

            On February 21, 2023, Spatz filed a cross-complaint against Taylor Equities and County of Los Angeles, asserting indemnity and apportionment. On June 20, 2023, County of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Spatz and Taylor Equities, asserting the same.

            On March 7, 2024, Defendant Taylor Equities filed the instant motion to bifurcate trial between the two incidents. Plaintiff filed her opposition on March 20, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on March 26, 2024.

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

            Defendant Taylor Equities argues that bifurcation is warranted because Plaintiff alleges unrelated injuries from separate incidents months apart. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s discovery responses revealed that she suffered different injuries from Incident 1 and Incident 2. Defendant argues that the two incidents have no issues in common and that the trial would be needlessly complicated if both incidents are adjudicated simultaneously. Lastly, Defendant contends that it would be prejudiced by jury confusion.  

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that because the incidents occurred only three months apart and she was still injured from Incident 1 when Incident 2 occurred, there will likely be an apportionment of damages between the two. Plaintiff contends that a single trial will be more organized and allow for a logical timeline of events. According to Plaintiff, testifying experts will be able to either divide the injuries by incident or prove aggravation and apportionment. Plaintiff argues that it would be a waste of judicial resources to delineate her injuries per accident at two separate trials. Plaintiff addresses her discovery responses by arguing that she is not a medical expert and cannot testify as to any relation (or lack thereof) between the two sets of injuries. Plaintiff points out that expert discovery has not yet begun, and argues that it is premature for Defendant to definitively conclude that the injuries are unrelated.

            The Court agrees with Plaintiff that bifurcation is unwarranted. Defendants’ cross-claims against each other demonstrate that there will be issues of apportionment between the two incidents. It would be inefficient to hold separate trials when the extent of liability attributable to one incident necessarily depends on the other incident. A single trial under these circumstances would avoid duplicate litigation, inconsistent findings, and jury confusion. Furthermore, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and defense counsel are not medical experts qualified to assess causation for each alleged injury. Thus, while Plaintiff identified injuries to different parts of her body for each incident, it cannot be determined at this stage that those injuries are unrelated.   

            In reply, Defendant relies on California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(a) to argue that the two incidents are unrelated. Rule 3.300(a) defines “related case” for purposes of relating two separate civil actions and combining them into one action. The rule is inapplicable here, where there is only one action to begin with. The issue is not the relationship between two actions, but the bifurcation of issues within a single action. Bifurcation is not warranted for the reasons discussed above.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Taylor Equities 15, LLC’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED.