Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV08600, Date: 2023-06-27 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 21STCV08600    Hearing Date: June 27, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

 

 

HEARING DATE:     June 16, 2023                         TRIAL DATE:  February 15, 2024

                                                          

CASE:                                Gustavo A. Cordoba v. S.W. School Supply, Inc., et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV08600

 

 

MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

 

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants S.W. School Supply, Inc. and Noe Rodriguez

 

RESPONDING PARTY:      No opposition

 

 

            Plaintiff, Gustavo A. Cordoba, filed this action against Defendants, S.W. School Supply, Inc., and Noe Rodriguez for injuries and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

 

            Defendants now move to bifurcate the trial of issues relating to Defendants’ liability and Plaintiff’s damages.   

 

            Defendants 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.

 

            However, 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.  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. 

 

            As such, Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to allow Defendants raising 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 recognizes that California Rules of Court, rule 3.57, subdivision (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.  Defendants 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. 

 

            Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice.  The Court notes that trial is scheduled for February 15, 2024.  If and/or when the case proceeds to trial, the bifurcation briefing should be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed at that time.

 

Moving party to give notice. 

 

 

 

Dated:   June 16, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 

            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.