Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 23STCV05885, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05885    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 55

JOHN ROE v. JANE DOE,                                                  23STCV05885

Hearing Date:  8/31/23,  Dept. 55.

#8:   MOTION TO SEVER CROSS-COMPLAINT AND FOR SEPARATE TRIALS.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant

RP:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant

Summary

On 3/16/23, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that, after not receiving money she attempted to get from Plaintiff, Defendant made fabricated allegations to third parties that the parties’ sexual relationship months before was "non-consensual" (i.e. criminal "rape").  The cause of action is INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

On 7/28/23, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff alleging that, on or about 11/18/21, after drugging Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant raped her, notwithstanding that Cross-Complainant resisted him physically and verbally, and said “no” and “stop.”

Cross-Complainant’s Causes of Action are:

1. SEXUAL BATTERY

2. BATTERY

3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

4. NEGLIGENCE

5. PREMISES LIABILITY

6. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

7. INVASION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY

8. FALSE IMPRISONMENT

9. INTERFERENCE WITH EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS – VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 52.1.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order severing the action and cross-action, or separate trials with trial on the Cross-Complaint first, on grounds including the following:

·         The Court has the authority to order that JANE DOE’s cross-claims be severed from JOHN ROE’s complaint in the interest of justice and efficiency to avoid unfair prejudice, to order that JANE DOE’s special defense under Section 47(b) be tried before JOHN ROE’s claim, and to order that JANE DOE’s cross-claims be tried separately and before JOHN ROE’s claim.

·         It would be unfairly prejudicial to JANE DOE to have to defend against JOHN ROE’s claim and for him to put on a damages case before a trial on her special defense under Civil Code section 47(b) and before her trial for all claims against JOHN ROE.

·         Defendant and Cross-Complainant, JANE DOE, filed all of her claims against JOHN ROE in the Cross-Complaint because she recognizes that JOHN ROE’s frivolous Complaint focuses on his vague allegations that she “falsely accused him of rape” to “third parties” and that the elements of defending against that will require her to prove that she indeed was raped, which will be some of the same evidence required to prove some of her claims against JOHN ROE in the Cross-Complaint.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         The facts leading up to that incident and the facts after the incident are the same facts in both cases.

·         The same witnesses, documents, evidence, experts, etc. will need to testify concerning the trial Complaint and the Cross-Complaint in both trials if the court were to sever the two cases.

·         Severance would be a tremendous waste of judicial resources and the resources of the parties.

·         The motion’s “evidence” is a 10 paragraph declaration of counsel for Defendant that does not have a word about prejudice at trial and merely identifies a series of documents.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied, in the Court’s discretion.

The Court readily finds that the witnesses and other evidence would be highly duplicative as to both the Complaint alleging that no rape occurred, and the Cross-Complaint conversely alleging that rape did occur.  Thus, extremely inefficient time consumption would be involved in severed or sequential trials.  Further, the Court finds that moving party’s contention of prejudice is merely speculation and is avoidable by the factfinder(s) following the law.

“In general, ‘[w]hether there shall be a severance and separate trials on issues in a single action is a matter within the discretion of the trial court . . . .’ "  Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 911.  Accord  Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 824, 833;  Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 193, 205;  Finley v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1163;  Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504. 

Where a separate trial before a different jury would involve duplicative adjudications, to the detriment of judicial economy, it is entitled to some consideration in the court's exercise of discretion.  Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 913.