Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: BC700634, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700634    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 22, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Tung Ming

Responding Party:                  Plaintiffs Julie A. Esphorst and Jesse Esphorst

Motion to Bifurcate Liability, Compensatory Damages, and Punitive Damages

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED as to punitive damages and DENIED as to liability and compensatory damages.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP §598, “[t]he 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 . . . .”

Under CCP §1048(b), “[t]he 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 . . . or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues.”  

DISCUSSION

Defendant Tung Ming requests that the court bifurcate the trial into three phases:  (1) liability, (2) compensatory damages, and (3) punitive damages.

Defendant contends that given the fact that this case involves a teenage decedent, it is anticipated that the damages portion will be “highly emotional and that plaintiffs will be asking the jury to award multiple millions of dollars.”  Defendant contends that plaintiffs’ testimony about “the loss of their oldest son and the impact it has had on their lives and their family” “could easily bleed over into the jury’s evaluation of liability,” “resulting in severe prejudice to” defendant.  Defendant argues that the issue of liability is “highly disputed.” 

Defendant also argues that bifurcation of punitive damages is mandatory under Civil Code §3295(d).

Plaintiffs do not oppose bifurcating punitive damages, acknowledging that it is mandatory.

Plaintiffs oppose bifurcating liability and compensatory damages.  Plaintiff Jesse Esphorst asserts that that the motion does not address “the many complexities that would arise” if the court were to order trial in three-phases.  Plaintiff also argues that the motion is devoid of any authority to support that evidence of damages is a basis upon which to bifurcate.  Plaintiff also contends that defendant’s logic is flawed as to whether he is liable because another party “bears some degree of fault.”  See CACI No. 431.

In her opposition, plaintiff Julie Esphorst argues that none of the conditions exist under CCP §598 as bifurcation would not promote the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation.  Further, plaintiff asserts, Ming was criminally convicted of vehicular manslaughter and “criminal convictions conclusively establish liability res judicata against Ming in the civil case.”  Also, plaintiff contends, many witnesses have testimony that is relevant to both liability and damages.

In trials where punitive damages are claimed, bifurcation is mandatory on defendant’s motion:  No evidence of defendant’s wealth (e.g., assets, income, financial condition, etc.) is admissible “until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finding the defendant guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with Section 3294” (requiring clear and convincing evidence).  Civ. Code §3295(d); see CACI 3948, 3949; see also BAJI 14.72.1, 14.72.2.  “Upon a defendant’s motion, a trial must be bifurcated when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages.”  Westrec Marina Mgt., Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1050.  This avoids the risk that defendant’s financial condition might taint the jury's determination of the underlying liability case and the issues of “oppression, fraud or malice.”  Medo v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 64, 67–68.

As to bifurcating liability and compensatory damages, the court finds that the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would not be promoted.  Further, separate trials would not be conducive to expedition and economy. 

            Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to bifurcating punitive damages and DENIED as to liability and compensatory damages.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of the ruling.