Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01908, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01908    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Stiffelman v. Rubin, Case no. 19SMCV01908

Hearing date November 6, 2024

Defendant’s Request to Bifurcate, or in the Alternative, for Permission to file a MSJ

Plaintiff Gary Stiffelman and defendant Stuart Rubin (“Stuart”) agreed to develop a hotel. Stuart Rubin hired his son Joseph Rubin (“Joseph”) to help oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges both Rubins mismanaged the project and misappropriated funds. Defendant Joseph seeks to bifurcate the claims against himself and Stuart, or in the alternative for permission to file an MSJ.

When the court held a Vesco hearing regarding Stuart’s medical condition (see Min. Order 10/14/24), it also heard argument regarding bifurcation and ordered the parties to file 10-page briefs. Stiffelman filed 43 pages of exhibits; the Rubins filed 208 pages of declarations and exhibits.

Code Civ. Proc. §598 permits bifurcation “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.” See also Trickey v. Superior Court (1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653 (noting §598’s purpose “is avoidance of the waste of time and money”). Similarly, Code Civ. Proc. §379.5 permits separate trials “to prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense” or “as the interests of justice may require.”

Only three causes of action are alleged as against Joseph: fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and derivative unjust enrichment. Twenty causes of action are alleged against Stuart. Joseph argues Stuart is not a necessary witness in Stiffelman’s action against him, so Stuart’s availability does not prevent Stiffelman from litigating his claims against Joseph. Joseph notes Stuart failed to participate in the litigation and asserts Stuart will likely be defaulted, meaning litigation against Joseph would result in practical bifurcation, even if not ordered by the court. Joseph argues continued delays prejudice him via cost, reputation and time.

Stiffelman argues bifurcation would be inefficient and result in substantial duplication. He asserts both defendants, as well as many third-party witnesses, will be necessary at a trial involving either Rubin. Stiffelman asserts Stuart’s testimony is necessary against Joseph, so trial against Joseph cannot proceed without Stuart, regardless of bifurcation. Stiffelman argues Joseph’s assertions of a 3-day trial are unrealistic, with anywhere from 35.5 to 73 hours of anticipated witness testimony contemplated. The court agrees.

There is significant risk of overlap and inefficiency should the court bifurcate two interrelated cases. Joseph’s assertions that claims against him can be litigated in three days are unrealistic. Though the court declines to bifurcate, Joseph will be allowed to file a motion for summary judgment. Joseph asserts he requires 30-60 days to prepare moving papers. As Joseph argued the scope of the claims against him were so narrow, the court assumes papers could be filed within 30 days.