Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 19SMCV01622 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01622, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01622 Hearing Date: October 20, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Ghods v. Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT, et al., Case No. 19SMCV01622
Hearing date October 20, 2022
Plaintiff Ghods’ Motion to Bifurcate

On September 16, 2019 plaintiff Ghods sued defendants Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT, Thind and Maldonado for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud for allegedly misrepresenting zoning laws plaintiff sought to lease for his business.

On June 8, 2021 plaintiff’s former fiancé and business partner Pink cross-complained. On September 14, 2022, the court granted summary judgment against Pink for plaintiff/cross-defendant Ghods. Pink’s remaining causes of action are against Mayman, Lavi, and Lionhead Global #2, LLC. Plaintiff does not have any causes of action against these defendants.

Plaintiff Ghods seeks to bifurcate or sever his action against Coldwell Banker, Thind and Maldonado from Pink’s action against Mayman, Lavi and Lionhead Global #2, LLC. The motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff brings a motion to sever under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b), arguing he has no causes of action against the defendants in Pink’s action. Since Pink’s action is considerably newer than plaintiff’s, allowing the actions to continue together would cause plaintiff undue delay, expense and a potential dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 [requiring dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years].

“When parties have been joined under Section 378 or 379, the court may make such orders as may appear just to prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense, and may order separate trials or make such other order as the interests of justice may require.” Code Civ. Proc. § 379.5. “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, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).

Plaintiff shows good cause to bifurcate his action from Pink’s action. Plaintiff has no interest in the causes of action asserted by Pink against LionHead, Mayman or Lavi. Because Pink filed her cross-complaint nearly two years after plaintiff initiated his action, forcing plaintiff to participate in Pink’s action will cause plaintiff undue expenses and delay.

The motion is unopposed. Plaintiff served Pink and defendants in both actions. Weber Decl. ¶ 2. None of the parties opposed. Id. ¶ 3. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed as consent to granting the motion”. Cal. Rules Ct. 8.54(c). Motion to bifurcate GRANTED.