Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21STCV06759, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 21STCV06759    Hearing Date: August 9, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

Background

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Patricia Kimball (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 4, 2020, she sustained injuries to her body, including her right arm, hand, and wrist, while she was walking on a public sidewalk at or near 525 Huntley Drive, West Hollywood, CA 90048.  Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a portion of concrete sidewalk that was raised at least one inch above the adjacent sidewalk slab, creating a tripping hazard.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust negligently owned, maintained, managed, and controlled the premises.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of West Hollywood (“City”) owned the public property on which the dangerous condition existed. 

The complaint, filed February 19, 2021, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) general negligence.   

On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the complaint as to Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust. 

B.     Cross-Complaints

On April 26, 2021, City filed a cross-complaint against Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust for: (1) apportionment of fault.  On July 29, 2021, City dismissed without prejudice its cross-complaint as to Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust only. 

On May 27, 2021, Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust filed a cross-complaint against City for: (1) total equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) implied indemnity; and (4) declaratory relief.  On September 10, 2021, Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust dismissed without prejudice the cross-complaint filed Sheila Kadisha as trustee for the Sheila Kadisha Trust on May 27, 2021. 

C.     Motions on Calendar

On April 22, 2024, City filed a motion for an order bifurcating the issues of liability and damages pursuant to CCP §§ 598 and 1048(b). 

On June 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief.

On July 3, 2024, City filed a reply brief.

No trial date has been set.

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 598 states in relevant part:

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 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 part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. 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 the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated.

(CCP § 598.) 

CCP § 1048(b) states in relevant part:

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 § 1048(b).) 

DISCUSSION

City moves to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.  City argues that the issue of liability should be tried before damages in the interest of judicial economy and to reduce the likelihood of inflaming or misleading the jury to the prejudice of City. 

City argues that the liability phase can be conducted in dramatically less time than the damages phase.  It argues that the jury will have to decide whether the 7/8 of an inch offset represents a substantial risk of injury and therefore constitutes a dangerous condition of public property—City contends that this is a trivial defect.  City argues that a picture of the sidewalk uplift taken by Plaintiff’s son 30 days after the accident shows that the sidewalk differential was less than an inch.  (See Mot. at p.4.)  City argues that the evidence of liability in this case is simple and includes “photographs taken very close to the time of the incident objectively demonstrate the nature of the alleged dangerous condition; deposition testimony from the plaintiff and her son regarding the mechanics of the fall; a plaintiff and the defense liability expert opining as to the size of the uplift; [and] a plaintiff and a defense liability expert opining as to whether the City’s had a reasonable inspection program.”  (Id. at p.5.)  In contrast, City argues that damages are much more involved as it will include the testimony of Plaintiff, her son, her son’s partner, additional damages witnesses (housekeeper, closer friends, etc.), her treating orthopedic surgeon (Charles Moon), her treating pain management doctor (Laura Audell), her treating occupational therapist (Jack Dilfer), her retained orthopedist (Dr. Enna), her retained pain management doctor (Joshua Prager), her retained life care planner (Dr. Tolbert), and an economist.  City claims it will call an orthopedist (Dr. Rose), a pain management doctor (Lawrence Miller), and a life care planner (Dawn Cook).  It argues that this totals 14 to 16 damages witnesses and approximately 7 liability witnesses.  (Id.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that City has not shown that it has a high probability of prevailing on liability at trial, bifurcation would not promote efficiency, and City has not shown that this case is unique where liability and damages cannot be tried together.  Plaintiff argues that while City contends that a sidewalk height differential of up to one and a half inch is considered “trivial,” Plaintiff relies on other case law that there is no bright line rule deeming whether a defect is trivial or a dangerous condition.  Plaintiff also points out that City’s prior motion for summary judgment on the issue had been denied, such that questions of fact remain for the trier of fact to determine. 

The parties each provide photographs of the sidewalk with a measuring tape.  The Court will not engage in a premature discussion of the facts of the case nor make a factual determination regarding whether the sidewalk height differential constitutes a trivial defect or a dangerous condition.  However, based on the parties’ arguments in their respective briefs, there appears to be issues of fact regarding the height differential, circumstances surrounding the accident, and Defendant’s knowledge of the sidewalk prior to the subject incident. 

City has not shown how the convenience of witnesses will be promoted by granting this motion.  For example, City has not shown whether the witnesses and treating healthcare professionals are outside Los Angeles County or their schedules are such that phasing the trial will promote the convenience of witnesses. 

In addition, City has not shown in the motion papers how it would be prejudiced if the issues were heard together.  In the reply brief, City agues it will be prejudiced because City anticipates Plaintiff will ask for $3.5 million from the jury and she has put forth a life care plan valued at $2.4 million.  Plaintiff states that she will be attending trial daily such that the jury will see Plaintiff and her injury (i.e., her right arm is in a supportive sling) and she argues that issues of liability and damages are ordinarily presented together in these types of personal injury cases. Moreover, even if there is some limited possibility of prejudice, it can be ameliorated by proper instructions and motions in limine. The possibility of prejudice is not sufficiently probable to justify the  inherent inefficiency of consolidation.   

Finally, the Court finds that bifurcation would not necessarily promote judicial efficiency.  Again, the case seems to be straightforward and does not present complicated issues.  Plaintiff also argues that bifurcation would increase the time for trial as it would require two sets of opening and closing statements, two sets of jury instructions, two sets of deliberation, and the duplication of testimony from witnesses (namely, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s son Jereme Stark, and Plaintiff’s son-in-law Jordan Baldry).  (Opp. at pp.7-8.) 

At this time, the Court finds that bifurcation is not necessary in this action and would instead complicate the relatively straightforward trial that will go forward in this action.  As such, the motion to bifurcate is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant City of West Hollywood’s motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages at the trial is denied.  Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: August 9, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court