Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV12270, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12270    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED. 

On 3/30/2021, Plaintiffs Victor M. Barber, Lori Barber, Christine Cheung, and Kai Yung Cheung (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against The Point at Beverly Hills, Inc., Allstate HOA Management, Jasmine Minasian, Laura Almonacid, and Sarah Chang (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) negligence; (2) fraud; (3) fraud; (4) fraud; (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (6) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) nuisance; and (10) punitive damages.

            Now, Defendants move to bifurcate trial. 

Discussion

            Defendants move for an order bifurcating the issues of liability and punitive damages on the grounds that to do so will further convenience, will avoid significant prejudice to Defendants, and will promote judicial economy.

            The Court agrees.

Pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(d), in a case where punitive damages are being claimed, “[t]he 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….” (Civ. Code § 3295(d).) Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Ibid.)

“Section 3295 was enacted in 1979 to protect defendants from the premature disclosure of their financial condition when punitive damages are sought.” (Medo v. Super. Ct. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 64, 67.)

As such, bifurcating the liability and punitive damages phases would avoid any risk of prejudice to Defendants through premature disclosure of financial condition. Moreover, bifurcation would help to avoid jury confusion and error. Punitive damages are evaluated under a “clear and convincing” standard, whereas the underlying claims in this case are evaluated under a preponderance of evidence standard. Requiring jurors to evaluate evidence by two different standards can lead to confusion:

If the claims for compensatory and punitive damages are tried together the jury will be asked to weigh evidence that is being received simultaneously, by different standards. It is clear that such a situation will create confusion and uncertainty in the minds of the jury with the result that these different burdens of proof will be misapplied.

(Ghiardi and Kirchner, Punitive Damages Law and Practice Section 12.04, at pp. 12- 13 (1981).)

In sum, the Court finds that bifurcation would serve the interests of justice and economy, and will prevent substantial prejudice to Defendants.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   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.