Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV03583, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed by May 23, 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b) [opposition must be filed at least nine court days prior to the hearing].)

Plaintiff sues Defendants Ben Hang Lee, Trustee of the Lee Family Trust dated October 28, 2009; Eun Zoo Lee, Trustee of the Lee Family Trust dated October 28, 2009; Robert Lee a/k/a Rober Sang Lee d/b/a Landpac Realty and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to a January 28, 2022 complaint. The operative first amended complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) rescission of contract; (3) conversion; (4) common count – money had and received; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) specific performance.

On June 3, 2022, Ben Hang Lee and Eun Zoo Lee (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against Plaintiff, United Escrow Company and Roes 1 through 50, inclusive alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) fraudulent inducement; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) injunctive relief.

On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to bifurcate the issue of punitive damages at trial (the “Mot. to Bifurcate Punitive Damages”) and on April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to bifurcate the equitable issues at trial (the “Mot. to Bifurcate Equitable Issues”) (collectively, the “Motions). The Motions are unopposed.

Civil Code (“Civ. Code”) section 3295, subdivision (d) provides, in relevant part, that on application of any defendant, the Court “shall” bifurcate trial with respect to punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d); see Torres v. Auto. Club of So. California (1997) 16 Cal.4th 771, 777-78 [“[S]ection 3295(d) requires a court, upon application of any defendant, to bifurcate a trial so that the trier of fact is not presented with evidence of the defendant's wealth and profits until after the issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression, or fraud have been resolved against the defendant; see also Holdgrafer v. Unocal. Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 901, 919 [“While the statute refers only to evidence of the defendant's financial condition, in practice bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the amount of punitive damages is to be offered in the second phase, while the determination whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages (i.e., whether the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression) is decided in the first phase along with compensatory damages.”] [emphasis in original].) Unlike motions for discretionary bifurcation, requests for mandatory bifurcation of punitive damages determinations are essentially motions in limine, which may be brought at any time before trial. (See Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas Ctr. Assocs. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1241.)

Plaintiff moves for an order bifurcating trial upon the Cross-Complaint with respect to Cross-Complainants’ claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff requests that this Court preclude the admission of evidence relating to Plaintiff’s financial condition unless and until a jury finds that Cross-Complainants are entitled to punitive damages. (Mot. to Bifurcate Punitive Damages, p. 1:8-13.)

Plaintiff’s requested bifurcation is mandatory pursuant to Civ. Code section 3295, subdivision (b). Further, Cross-Complainants have not filed an opposition identifying grounds as to why Plaintiff’s request should not be granted. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1048 subdivision (b), “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 the state or of the United States.”

CCP section 598 provides in pertinent part as follows: “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 . . . 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, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.”

Granting or denying of a motion for separate trials lies within the trial court’s sound discretion and is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. (Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal App 3d 496, 504.) “The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (Foreman & Clark v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.) “The objective of bifurcation is to avoid wasting time and money on the trial of damages issues if the liability issue is resolved against plaintiff.” (Horton v Jones (1972) 26 Cal App 3d 952, 954.)

Plaintiff requests that the Court order a separate bench trial of the equitable issues in this case, including specific performance, prior to a trial of any remaining legal issues. (Mot. to Bifurcate Equitable Issues., p. 1:8-13.) Plaintiff argues that a separate trial is warranted because the Court’s findings on the equitable issues “may resolve all or most all of the legal issues and make it unnecessary to call a jury.” (Mot. to Bifurcate Equitable Issues., p. 6:17-18.)

“The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (See Foreman, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 888.) Plaintiff does not discuss the impact that a separate trial would have on the witnesses or the presentation of the evidence and does not discuss what evidence would be required for the resolution of the equitable issues or whether the separate and preliminary presentation of this evidence would be duplicative of the evidence on Cross-Complainants’ legal claims. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a separate trial on specific performance would “expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (See Foreman, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 888.) Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Equitable Issues is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages [RES ID # 6225] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to lodge evidence of his financial condition at the beginning of the first phase of trial. Said evidence will not be presented unless and until the trier of fact determines that Cross-Complainants are entitled to punitive damages.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court