Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV00331, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00331    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants 5.11, Inc. (“5.11”) and Hyper-Tech, Inc. (“Hypertech”) (joining 5.11’s motion) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order bifurcating trial into two phases: (1) liability, and (2) damages.

The Court DENIES the motion.

Background

This is a products liability case.

Plaintiffs Anthoney Keller, Denos Amarantos, and Maurice Kwon are police officers with the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). Plaintiffs allege that they suffered shoulder injuries from the use of 5.11’s medium battering ram in the scope of their police activities. Plaintiffs allege that the injuries were caused by design defects in the battering ram that cause strain on the user’s tendons and shoulders.

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 5, 2021. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which raises claims for (1) strict products liability; (2) negligence (products liability); and (3) breach of warranty.

On July 31, 2023, Hyper-Tech filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity.

On January 8, 2025, Hyper-Tech filed a fictitious name amendment to its cross-complaint, changing Roe 1 to Sweden Entry Tools AB (“Sweden Entry Tools”).

5.11 filed this motion on January 15, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an opposition and 5.11 filed a reply. Hyper-Tech joines in 5.11’s motion and reply.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice and takes notice of the submitted court records from this case.

Legal Standard

“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 … or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (b).)

“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 … 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 598.)

Discussion

            Defendants argue that bifurcation would increase efficiency because Plaintiffs are unlikely to establish liability and would prevent prejudice to Defendants resulting from evidence of their damages being introduced.

            Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have a low probability of success because each plaintiff has had a multi-decade police career beginning in their twenties. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ injuries likely resulted from wear and tear associated with their regular police activities. Defendants additionally contend that any injuries Plaintiffs did suffer resulted from the inherent nature of the use of a battering ram as a forceful activity, rather than the particular design of their battering ram.

            This appears to be an ordinary products liability case. The fact that Plaintiffs were engaged in a profession that introduces physical stressors into their lives simply does not take this case far enough outside of the norm to justify bifurcation.

            While some time may be saved if the trial is bifurcated and no liability is found, the reverse is also true. Some evidence of liability and damages is likely to be duplicative, as both will require evidence of the nature of Plaintiffs’ injuries. Some expert witnesses will likely be required to testify twice. There would be two sets of opening and closing arguments and, if a second jury is empaneled, a second voir dire. Defendants have not made an adequate showing that Plaintiffs’ case is so weak that bifurcation is necessary here.

            Defendants argue that evidence of damages will risk creating undue sympathy within the jury. However, this is no more true than in any other case involving personal injuries. The issue can be addressed with proper jury instructions and trial presentation.

            The Court determines that bifurcation is not likely to significantly increase judicial efficiency or prevent prejudice to Defendants. The Court declines to use its discretion to bifurcate the trial.

            The Court denies the motion.