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.