Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV30384, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV30384 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian
Department 27
Tentative
Ruling
¿
Hearing Date: 4/4/2024 at 1:30 p.m.
Case No./Name: 21STCV30384 ANNA MARIE ONAINDIA vs CITY OF
SANTA MONICA
Motion: MOTION TO BIFURCATE
Moving Party: Defendant City of Santa Monica
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Notice: Sufficient
Ruling: MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Legal Standard¿
“When the answer pleads that the action is
barred by the statute of limitations…or sets up any other defense not involving
the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action but constituting a bar…to the
prosecution thereof, the court may, either upon its own motion or upon the
motion of any party, proceed to the trial of¿the¿special defense or defenses before the trial
of any other issue in the case, and if the decision of the court, or the
verdict of the jury, upon any special defense so tried…is in favor of the defendant pleading the
same, judgment for¿the¿defendant shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues
in the action shall be had unless¿that¿judgment shall be reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside or
vacated…”¿ (CCP § 597.)¿¿
“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 . . . .”¿ (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1048,¿subd.
(b).)¿ Additionally, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of
witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the
litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and
hearing, 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 . .
. .”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)¿¿¿
“It is within the discretion of the court to
bifurcate issues or order separate trials of actions, such as for breach of
contract and bad faith, and to determine the order in which those issues are to
be decided.”¿ (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v.
Ranger Ins. Co.¿(2002)
100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.)¿ “The major objective of bifurcated trials is to
expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.”¿ (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon¿(1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.)¿¿
Analysis
On August 17,
2021, Plaintiff filed the current lawsuit alleging a dangerous condition of
public property after colliding with a metal stump while riding her scooter in
a bike lane in Santa Monica. Defendant City of Santa Monica sought summary
judgment on the basis of City’s trail immunity defense. The Court denied the
MSJ and determined that whether the metal signpost stub involved in the
accident is part of the trail is a matter for the jury to decide. Defendant now
moves the court for an order to bifurcate the trail immunity defense from
Plaintiff’s dangerous condition claim, requesting trial on the trail immunity
defense first. Defendant contends that such bifurcation could lead to an
expedited resolution of the case. The immunity issue could be settled with 1-2
days of testimony from a few select witnesses and a minimal number of
documents, rather than the potential for a two-week trial. Moreover, the jury's
examination of the trail immunity defense will focus on the specific issues
highlighted by the court's order in denying the summary judgment.
Although
Plaintiff plans to present numerous witnesses regarding both the trail immunity
defense and the dangerous condition, the court observes that many of these
witnesses pertain solely to the city's notice of the alleged defect and past
accidents that occurred at the location, rendering their testimony irrelevant
to trail immunity. Further, Plaintiff would not suffer any harm or prejudice
from bifurcation. Independent of bifurcation, Defendants will present evidence
on trail immunity, with the jury tasked with determining its applicability.
Although bifurcation
in this instance may conserve resources and enhance judicial efficiency for
both parties and the court, the decision of whether or not to bifurcate is best
left to the discretion of the trial judge.
Accordingly, the Court now denies the motion without prejudice to raise
it before trial with the trial judge.
Thus, the
Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Bifurcation regarding the trail immunity
defense WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Moving Party is to give notice.
If a party intends to submit on this
tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by
the case number. The body of the email must include the
hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the
party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative
ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person
for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at
the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at
hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the Court.
After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the
withdrawal of the subject motion without.