Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV38181, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38181    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On October 15, 2021, plaintiff Matthew Luciano filed this action against defendants Academy LA, LLC, Allen Davidoo, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 6021 Hollywood Operating Company, LLC and Insomnia Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).  On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, (3) assault and battery, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.    

          On October 31, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion (the “Motion”) to bifurcate vicarious liability for any torts committed by Co-Defendant Protect-US (“Co-Defendant”). The Motion is made on the grounds that Defendant Academy hired Co-Defendant, whose employee allegedly assaulted Plaintiff. Further, there is dispute as to the degree Defendant Academy controlled Co-Defendant.

          On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served its opposition to the Motion. On January 10, Defendants filed and served its reply brief. On January 11, 2024, Defendant Mondragon Quality Protections filed and served its Joinder in Support of Motion to Bifurcate Vicarious Liability. Trial in this action is currently scheduled for May 14, 2024.

II.      DISCUSSION

          Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. The Court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).) A court may sever the trial of a complaint and a trial on a cross-complaint. (Omni Aviation Managers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 682, 684.) A trial court retains authority “to postpone the trial of the indemnity question if it believes such action is appropriate to avoid unduly complicating the plaintiff’s suit.” (American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 584.)  

          Code Civ. Proc. § 598 provides that “[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 . . . make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or part thereof shall precede the trial of another issue or any part thereof in the case.”

In cases assigned to the Personal Injury Hub, the case will be tried by a different judge than the one assigned to rule on this motion. The Court finds that because of the close relationship between bifurcation motions and trial management, it is appropriate in this matter for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted.

A motion to bifurcate is not a motion in limine. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.57(c).) Nonetheless, as it relates to management of the trial proceedings, a motion to bifurcate has certain attributes that are similar to motions in limine. And, in cases assigned to the Personal Injury Hub, the trial judge (not the judge in the Personal Injury Hub) rules on all motions in limine. 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 that judge’s role in managing the trial proceedings.

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The issue of bifurcation should be raised with the trial judge at the time the trial judge rules upon motions in limine.

III.     CONCLUSION

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 18th day of January 2024