Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 18STCV01571, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV01571    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff Vanessa White (Plaintiff) filed suit against Walsh/Shea Corridor Constructors (Walsh/Shea), Walsh Construction Company, the Walsh Construction Group, LLC, the Walsh Group, J.F. Shea Construction, Inc., J.F. Shea Construction Management, Inc., Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority, and Rose Perez alleging: (1) race/color harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) race/color discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) unlawful retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent and/or stop harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Now, Defendant Walsh/Shea Corridor Constructors (Defendant) moves to bifurcate trial.

The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

“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 . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) 

Discussion

            Defendant argues that good cause exists to bifurcate the issues of Defendant’s alleged liability in this action from the issue of what, if any, economic and non-economic damages Plaintiff is entitled to recover.

CCP sections 598 and 1048, subdivision (b) empower this Court to bifurcate the issues to be tried. Section 598 provides, 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, . . . 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….

(CCP Code § 598.)

            Here, Plaintiff prays for “compensatory damages including lost wages, earnings, commissions, retirement benefits, and other employee benefits, and all other sums of money, together with interest on these amounts; for other special damages; [] for general damages for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress and loss of earning capacity.” (Complaint, p. 18.) Plaintiff also seeks a multi-seven-figure award for punitive damages.

As such, a determination of Plaintiff’s compensatory and emotional damages will raise questions of: (1) whether Plaintiff’s childhood and preexisting trauma affects her emotional damages; (2) whether Plaintiff’s comparable subsequent employment with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) from April 18, 2018 to June 20, 2019 cuts off compensatory damages; and (3) whether Plaintiff’s workplace injury while working with LADWP that left her permanently disabled affect both Plaintiff’s request for compensatory and emotional damages.

            Given the extent of damages claimed by Plaintiff, the Court agrees that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency would be best served if the issues of liability and damages were bifurcated, such that liability was determined first.

            Plaintiff’s failure to oppose this motion is considered a concession on the merits.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.