Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00600, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00600    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

 

 

HEARING DATE:      January 18, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

                                                          

CASE:                         ROBERT BARON v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 

 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00600

 

           

 

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

 

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant American Honda Motor Co.

 

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Robert Baron

 

SERVICE:                              Filed December 15, 2024

 

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 4, 2024

 

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.  

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

             Defendant moves to bifurcate the trial of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

 

BACKGROUND

 

This case arises out of Plaintiff Robert Baron’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim for a new 2018 Honda Accord, VIN 1HGCV1F48JA249058 (“Subject Vehicle”), that Plaintiff purchased on October 26, 2018. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant American Honda Motors Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) was aware of and concealed defects in the safety systems in their vehicle, such as the Honda Sensing system and the Collision Mitigation Braking System (“CMBS”).

 

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 23, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED, in part. Evidence of Defendant’s profit and financial condition is ordered excluded until the appropriate time.

 

DISCUSSION

 

             Defendant moves to bifurcate the trial of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

 

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” (Civil Code § 3295, subd. (d).)

 

            Pursuant to Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d), Defendant is entitled to bifurcate the issue of its financial condition. “As an evidentiary restriction, section 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. Bifurcation minimizes potential prejudice by preventing jurors from learning of a defendant's ‘deep pockets’ before they determine these threshold issues.” (Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777-78.)

 

            Defendant requests that the entire issue of punitive damages be bifurcated, including requesting this court to bar arguments that “Defendant ‘deserves to be punished’ or should be ‘made an example of’ ”. (Motion at p.4:1-2.) However, Defendant’s request is broader than the protections provided by statute. The excluded evidence pursuant to Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d), is “evidence of the defendant’s wealth and profits”. Thus, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is granted, in part. Evidence of Defendant’s profit and financial condition is ordered excluded until the appropriate time.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED, in part. Evidence of Defendant’s profit and financial condition is ordered excluded until the appropriate time.

 

 

 

 

           

Dated:   January 18, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org