Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV41627, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Centurion Protection Services (“Centurion”) and Richard Ray Dudgeon (“Dudgeon”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) Private Attorneys General Act; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code section 510; (3) failure to reimburse and indemnify for expenditures; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof in violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (5) Labor Code section 203 waiting time penalties; (6) Labor Code section 1198.5, subdivision (k) penalty; (7) Labor Code section 226, subdivision (f) penalty; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) violation of Penal Code section 637.7; and (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants’ second amended cross-complaint (the “SAXC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional interference with contractual relations; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) defamation; and (6) libel.

On September 12, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP Motion (the “anti-SLAPP Motion”). Defendants have appealed the Court’s September 12, 2023 ruling on the anti-SLAPP Motion and on January 5, 2024, the Court issued an order staying this action pending the resolution of Defendants’ appeal.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to bifurcate (the “Motion”). The Motion requests that the Court bifurcate the stay of discovery of issues related to the FAC from the stay of issues related to the SAXC.

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. (CCP § 1048, subd. (b).) CCP section 598 provides, in part, that 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, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any party thereof in the case. (CCP § 598.) Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof and the decision of the court or jury is in favor of the allegedly liable party, judgment in favor of that party shall be entered and no trial of other issues in the action against that party will be had. (Id.) If the decision of the court or jury on the issue of liability is against the party allegedly liable, the trial of the other issues shall be had before the same or another jury as ordered by the court. (Id.)

Bifurcation frequently occurs when the determination of one issue, such as an affirmative defense, renders other issues moot. (See, e.g., Buran Equipment v. H&C Investment Co. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-44.) Trial courts also often bifurcate equitable and legal issues, resolving the issues of equity first in order to promote judicial economy. (Darbun Enters, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hosp. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 408-09.) While a litigant in a civil action generally has a constitutional right to jury trial on “legal” causes of action, there is no such right with respect to equitable causes of action. (Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1, 19.)

As an initial matter, the Motion does not request the relief available under CCP section 1048—a bifurcation of the trials on the FAC and SAXC. Furthermore, while the Motion states that the discovery connected to the FAC and SAXC do not raise the same issues and therefore would not negatively impact the economy of the litigation, Plaintiff provides no evidence to this effect.[1]

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] In law and motion practice, facts are provided to the court via declarations. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)