Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV33177, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33177    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     December 8, 2023                              TRIAL DATE:  February 28, 2024

CASE:                                Susanna Ruiz v. Kristine Kelly, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV33177

MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Kristine Kelly and The Kris Kelly Foundation

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Susanna Ruiz

            On August 31, 2020, Susanna Ruiz (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Kristine Kelly (“Kelly”), The Kris Kelly Foundation (“Kelly Foundation”), and Does 1 to 100 (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a dog attack. Plaintiff alleges negligence, strict liability, and statutory liability under Civil Code § 3342.

The Instant Motion

            On March 30, 2023, Defendants Kristine Kelly and The Kris Kelly Foundation moved to bifurcate the trial of all issues relating to Defendants’ liability and Plaintiff’s damages because (I) it is appropriate to bifurcate trial of two or more issues when doing so will serve the ends of justice, judicial economy, and efficiency; and (II) the majority of evidence to be presented at trial pertains to plaintiff’s medical damages.

            On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. Plaintiff opposes because she claims (I) bifurcation will not result in greater judicial economy and will substantially inconvenience witnesses, increase costs to both parties, waste valuable court resources including jury panels that could be used for other trials; and (II) the majority of the evidence to be presented at trial pertains to liability—not medical damages which would cause significant overlap. Further, Plaintiff claims that testimony/evidence regarding liability and medical damages will have significant overlap.

            On November 30, 2023, Defendant filed a Reply claiming that Plaintiff wholly misrepresented the issues in this matter because Defendants’ position is that Defendants never owned the dog that bit her (“Snoopy”) and had no responsibility for it which is not an issue requiring testimony from forensic experts to prove that the Snoopy, as opposed to some other dog, bit plaintiff.   

            Defendant properly sought a bifurcation (or severance) order in advance of the February 28, 2024 trial date as it was filed on March 30, 2023 which was more than 30 days. (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].) A trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Id.)

            However, given that in the Personal Injury (PI) 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, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to allow Defendant to raise this issue for the trial judge to consider 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. Defendant 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. Trial is scheduled for February 28, 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:   December 8, 2023                                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    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.