Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20SMCV00739, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00739    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Tizabgar, et al., v. Abrahams, et al.

CASE NO.:                20SMCV00739

MOTION:                  Motion to Bifurcate

HEARING DATE:   1/17/2024

Legal Standard

The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby [. . .] make an order [. . .] that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case [. . .]¿ The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. [. . .]”¿ (CCP § 598.) “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.”¿ (CCP § 1048(b).)

Analysis

Defendants Keith and Stacey Abrahams, individually and trustees of the Abrahams Living Trust, move to bifurcate the equitable issues from the legal issues at trial and try the equitable issues first. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

Defendants claim that judicial economy and the interest of justice warrant severing/bifurcating and trying the equitable issues in this case first. They argue that the case presents two equitable issues: whether the express easement in Defendants’ deed allows the Spa and Planter to remain, or if an equitable easement should be granted. Defendants argue that the resolution of these equitable issues may obviate the need for a jury determination on Tizabgars’ trespass, nuisance, or ejectment causes of action.

Indeed, the quiet title and equitable easement issues are issues for the Court to determine. (Caira v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 12, 25.) When equitable and legal issues are joined in the same action, the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues. (Hoopes v Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.) In such a case, the Court may bifurcate the action to try the equitable issues first without a jury. If the judge's determination of those issues also resolves the legal issues, nothing further remains to be tried by a jury. (Id. at 157–158 [it may be better practice for judge to determine equitable issues before submitting legal issues to jury, to promote judicial economy, and is common practice in California courts].) Conversely, if the legal issues are tried before the equitable issues, the jury's determination of the legal issues may foreclose a trial of the equitable issues. (Id. at 157.)

The title/equitable easement issues are central to the dispute herein. Resolving the quiet title or equitable easement causes of action in favor of Defendants would likely resolve legal questions in the trespass, nuisance and ejectment causes of action. For instance, if the Court agrees that Defendants’ hardscape and planter surrounding their spa are allowable under the express or equitable easement, then there would be no need to empanel a jury on the trespass claims, as there could be no trespass from those encroachments. Considering this, it would be logical to resolve the title/easement issues first, since the trespass claims flow from the property rights determined by the Court. Additionally, the specific facts relevant to the equitable and legal issues are not so-intertwined that bifurcating would risk extensive duplication of the presentation of evidence to the jury. Of course, there would be some duplication since the nature of the encroachment would be relevant to both determinations. That said, the Court’s determination of these issues before the jury is empaneled may expedite the trial and avoid the unnecessary presentation of evidence.

Accordingly, the motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.