Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19STCV43863, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV43863    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Wabisabi, et al., v. The Abbot Kinney Grill LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                19STCV43863

MOTION:                  Motion to Sever Trial

HEARING DATE:   2/9/2023

 

Legal Standard

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(b), “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 the state or of the United States.” CCP section 1048 also authorizes a court to separate trial of any issue for furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice or where separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.

 

Granting or denying of a motion for separate trials lies within the trial court’s sound discretion and is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. (Grappo v Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal App 3d 496, 504.) “The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (Foreman & Clark v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.) For example, bifurcation may “avoid wasting time and money on the trial of damages issues if the liability issue is resolved against plaintiff.” (Horton v Jones (1972) 26 Cal App 3d 952, 954.)

 

Analysis

 

Cross-Defendant Stainless Worx Inc. moves for an order severing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ocean Spaulding Inc.’s cross-complaint for a separate trial from the trial on Plaintiffs Wabi Venice LLC, TM Abbot Kinney LLC, Tricia Small, and Sam F. Marshall’s complaint, or alternatively, for an order continuing trial.

 

Stainless asserts there is good cause because it was not served with the Cross-Complaint until January 4, 2023. Stainless notes that it and the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial regarding Stainless’s involvement. Stainless further argues that severance/continuance would be justified because of the upcoming trial and final status conference this month and that there have been no other continuances. Stainless believes that they would be unduly prejudiced since they have not had the opportunity to participate in discovery, retain experts, or fully investigate Ocean’s liability.  In addition, Stainless wants to bring a motion for summary judgment, but were served with the cross-complaint too late to even bring such a motion. 

 

Here, the Court concludes that severance of Stainless is justified.  As an initial matter, Ocean named Stainless as a cross-defendant in this matter on October 29, 2021, yet failed to serve them for over 15 months.  Based upon the evidence submitted to the Court, Stainless has maintained the same address since 2010, and continued to work with Ocean on 14 additional jobs since the fire – yet Ocean was unable to serve them.  Moreover, according to Ocean’s principal, Mr. Marfori, there is no basis for even naming Stainless in the complaint based upon the work they performed at the restaurant.  (See 3/24/23 Chapman Decl., ¶ 8; Exh. B.)  Based upon Ocean’s admission, Stainless appears to have a strong summary judgment motion in this matter, which would negate the need for any second trial.

 

Furthermore, the Court must consider that this case involves multiple parties, all of whom have potential trial conflicts if the Court was to continue the trial.  By severing out the issue of Stainless’ liability on the cross-complaint, the Court will promote the convenience of the remaining parties, convenience to the Court and its own trial schedule, expedite the trial of this matter, and avoid prejudice to Stainless.  Furthermore, trial in the main action may result in no liability being found against Ocean, which would negate the need for a second trial.  If there is liability, the results of the first trial would also foster settlement discussions between Ocean and Stainless.  The Court recognizes there might be some inconvenience to Ocean in having to try a separate case against Stainless, but Ocean should have been much more diligent in identifying Stainless as a potential defendant and serving them.  The cross-complaint was filed on February 26, 2020, yet Stainless was not named until October 2021, and not served until January 2023.  Any additional burden with severance appropriately falls on Ocean.        

 

Accordingly, Stainless’s motion is GRANTED.  The Court sets a trial setting conference for May 8, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.