Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2021-00050284-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024
05/03/2024 10:30:00 AM C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00050284-CU-PO-CTL MORALES VS BURCH [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
TENTATIVE RULING Cross-Defendant 7-Eleven Inc.'s motion to sever and stay the cross-complaint filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Cosmic Concepts Ltd. is DENIED.
The motion is technically mislabeled. 'Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 no longer authorizes severance of a civil action.' (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 737, fn. 3.) Rather, the section now provides, in pertinent part: '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.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b); see Morehart, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 737, fn. 3.) Nomenclature aside, that appears to be the relief that 7-Eleven seeks-i.e., a separate trial as to the indemnity and declaratory relief causes of action alleged against it in Cosmic's cross-complaint.
A 'trial court retains the 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 Motor Cycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 584.) However, 'in this context severance may at times not be an attractive alternative.' (Id. at p. 606.) Here, the cross-claims against 7-Eleven arise out of the same car accident at issue in the complaint.
The complaint and cross-claims will involve overlapping witnesses and evidence that economy dictates be presented at a single trial.
The motion also only seeks to 'sever' the cross-claims against 7-Eleven, and does not seek similar relief as to the cross-claims against the other cross-defendants. As the jury may be tasked with apportioning fault for the accident among various parties, it makes sense that the respective fault of all potential joint tortfeasors be determined at the same trial.
7-Eleven asserts that the jury may be confused by its presence at trial, but those concerns are speculative. Juries are frequently called upon to apportion fault between multiple parties. It would be more problematic to have two different trials yielding two potentially different allocations of fault.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3108565 48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MORALES VS BURCH [IMAGED] 37-2021-00050284-CU-PO-CTL 7-Eleven argues that the cross-complaint will be moot if Cosmic successfully defends against the complaint. However, that potential does not outweigh the significant inefficiency associated with a second trial on the indemnity cross-claims in the event Cosmic is found liable on the complaint. Much of the same evidence would need to be presented a second time to determine the parties' respective fault regarding the accident.
7-Eleven also argues that it will be prejudiced if the motion is denied because it needs more time to conduct discovery. 7-Eleven was served in November 2023 and the discovery cutoff is not until August 2024, which means 7-Eleven will have had approximately 9 months to conduct discovery. 7-Eleven asserts that it mistakenly believed discovery was closed for a portion of that time, but that was discussed and affirmed at the last ex parte hearing. In any event, as between conducting two separate trials or briefly continuing one trial to complete any outstanding discovery, the latter (if necessary) is the lesser of two evils.
7-Eleven has not established good cause for a separate trial as to the cross-claims against it. The motion to sever and stay is therefore denied.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3108565 48