Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV14347, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14347    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Phillip C. Mills filed this action for housing discrimination against Defendants Corporation for Better Housing; 1264 W. Rosamond Blvd., LP; Winnresidential California, LP; and Darlene Tolman.

            On July 9, 2024, Defendants Winnresidential California, LP and Darlene Tolman filed the instant motion to bifurcate trial into liability and damages phases. The remaining Defendants filed a joinder to the motion on July 10, 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

            Defendants argue that bifurcation is warranted because the damages issue would be moot if Defendants are found not liable. However, this is true in every case involving damages. This alone does not justify creating two separate trials. There is no indication that judicial economy would be served by bifurcation in this particular case. To the contrary, because the witnesses and evidence for both liability and damages will be the same, bifurcation would lead to duplication and waste.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is DENIED.