Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV38882, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

 PLEASE NOTE:    

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.  

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit. 

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.  

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email. 

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. 

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present. 

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.     

Case Number: 20STCV38882    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 30

EVAN MCNIEL vs NORTHWEST INDUSTRIAL CENTER, LLC

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Discussion

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to Defendant raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine. The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case. The Court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(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.Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. (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).) However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Id.)On the facts of this case, and given that in the Personal Injury 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 trial judges are better suited to make the discretionary determination based on the entirety of the trial considerations in this case.