TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Parvin Yadegar and Kambiz Yadegar, Individually and as Trustee of the Yadegar K. Trust’s Motion to Sever the Second Cause of Action from the Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Parvin Yadegar and Kambiz Yadegar, Individually and as Trustee of the Yadegar K. Trust to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Parvin Yadegar and Kambiz Yadegar, Individually and as Trustee of the Yadegar K. Trust (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order severing the second cause of action in Plaintiff Michael Lavian (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint on the ground that the complaint alleges two unrelated incidents in a single complaint, which will cause Defendants unnecessary time and expense, as well as be confusing for the jury, such that the second cause of action should be severed from the complaint.

“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, 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, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)  

The Court finds that severance is proper here, as the two causes of action relate to entirely unrelated events with unrelated parties. While Plaintiff argues he does not oppose the motion to sever and stipulates that he would not seek damages against Defendants for the motor vehicle accident alleged in the second cause of action, he also states that “the issue is really one of Much ado about Nothing” (Opp’n, p. 2, l. 11), but the Court does not agree. Even if the defendant of the second cause of action is in default, there is a possibility the default could be vacated at any time, and the cause could proceed to trial on both causes of action, which would result in confusion to the trier of fact and unnecessary time and expense to Defendants. The complaint alleges only one prayer for relief, and it is not clear why Plaintiff chose to bring these two claims in the same complaint. Whether Plaintiff may settle his claim with the defendant in the second cause of action is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis here. Put simply, there is no basis to conclude that trial of the two causes of action together would be proper. Accordingly, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Parvin Yadegar and Kambiz Yadegar, Individually and as Trustee of the Yadegar K. Trust’s Motion to Sever the Second Cause of Action from the Complaint is GRANTED.