Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV36598, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36598    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Kevin Fabian Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, and (3) premises liability against Defendants Holst Brothers, Inc. (“Holst”) and Morteza Ejabat (“Ejabat”) (collectively “Defendants”).  This matter arises from the injuries that Plaintiff sustained while he was employed by Bob Hart’s Electric, Inc. (“BHE”).  BHE was subcontracted by Defendants to perform electric work at 32853 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu CA 90265 (the “Property”).

On December 30, 2019, Holst filed a Cross-Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) express indemnity, (3) total equitable indemnity, (4) partial equitable indemnity, (5) contribution and repayment, (6) declaratory relief, and Negligence.  On October 14, 2020, BHE was substituted in as Moe 1.

On September 30, 2022, BHE filed the instant motion to bifurcate the indemnity causes of action in the Cross-Complaint.  Holst filed an untimely opposition on January 31, 2023.  Despite the opposition being untimely, the Court does not find it necessary to consider BHE’s reply to that opposition (to the extent one is filed), as the untimely opposition does not change the Court’s ruling.

II.          DISCUSSION

BHE’s motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice.

On the facts of this case, and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the Court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted.

BHE properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial).)  However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.”  (Id.) 

BHE may raise this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine.  The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case.  The Court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule.  BHE may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed to in any way bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion. 

          In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation.  While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar.  The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience. 

          Thus, BHE’s Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

III.        CONCLUSION

BHE’s Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 3rd day of February 2023