Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV48652, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48652    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 68

The Motion to Bifurcate

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 22, 2020.  This action arises out of a landlord/tenant dispute between Plaintiffs, the tenants, and Defendants, the landlords.  Plaintiffs are alleging causes of action for violation of Civil Code 1941 and 1942; breach of the warranty of habitability; negligence; nuisance; breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; harassment; unfair business practices; and intentional infliction of emotion distress.  As part of their claims for relief, Plaintiffs have requested punitive damages.

Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court bifurcate the liability phase of the trial from the damages phase.  They also appear to seek a bifurcation of the punitive damages phase.  They indicate that if Defendants are found to have acted with malice, fraud, and/or oppression, Plaintiffs can request leave of the Court to conduct financial discovery on Defendants to determine the Defendants’ financial condition.  Plaintiffs are also requesting that the Unfair Business Practices claims be bifurcated because there is no right to a jury trial that claim.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to bifurcate on January 6, 2023.  No opposition has been filed.

The Law

Code of Civil Procedure § 598 provides in pertinent part that, “[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.” Similarly, C.C.P § 1048(b) provides in pertinent part that, “[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, 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.”

The Court’s discretionary authority to sever claims and try them separately may also be employed to avoid undue prejudice to a party. (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp., v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 988.) Courts have inherent power to regulate the order of trial, and therefore can entertain a motion to bifurcate at any time—even during the trial itself. (McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 353.)

The discretion of the trial court to bifurcate claims and try them separately is broad and will not be disturbed on appeal, except for abuse. (National Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418; see Buran Equip. Co. v. H & C Investment Co. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-344 [commending the trial court for bifurcating the trial and ordering a specific issue be tried first, “since, if it had been correctly decided, trial would not have been required of any other issues.”].)

But Why?

The Court does not believe that there is any benefit to bifurcating this case as suggested by Plaintiffs.  It is not at all clear what precisely Plaintiffs mean when seeking to establish liability in one phase of this habitability trial.  It appears to the Court that the liability evidence shall inherently involve presentation not only of the claimed living conditions, but also evidence regarding how those conditions impacted the Plaintiffs.  Is that liability?  Is that damages?  Do Plaintiffs merely mean that the evidence of quantification of the claimed damages shall be placed in a second phase?

While a defendant has the right to have punitive damages bifurcated under Civil Code § 3495(d), bifurcation at the request of the Plaintiffs is not controlled by that provision.  Since Defendant has not sought bifurcation, the Court is inclined to deny the Plaintiffs’ request.

As to the Business & Professions Code § 17200 claim, the fact that the claim is to be tried to the Court, not a jury does not suggest a bifurcation.  The same evidence shall be presented for this claim and the others.  The Court shall simply be the trier of fact and shall fulfill that role.

In short, the Court sees no advantage to bifurcating this trial.