Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19STCV30280, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30280    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Kristin Hirai (individually and as successor-in-interest to Toshio Hirai), Takeo Hirai, Isao Hirai, and Brigitta Hirai filed this action against Defendants, Skating Edge Ice Arena, et al. for damages arising out of an automobile v. motorcycle accident.  The accident killed Decedent, Toshio Hirai.  The operative First Amended Complaint includes causes of action for:

·         Wrongful Death -- Premises Liability (Skating Edge and Heindl);

·         Wrongful Death -- Dangerous Condition of Public Property (City of Los Angeles, State of California);

·         Wrongful Death -- Negligence (Jessica, Lonnie, and Tanesha Phillips; Tara and Sergio Fernandez);

·         Wrongful Death -- Strict Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC);

·         Wrongful Death -- Negligent Products Liability (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC);

·         Wrongful Death -- Products Liability – Breach of Warranties (SHARK Helmets North America, LLC).

Skating Edge, Heindl, Shark, and the Fernandezes have been dismissed from the complaint.  The City, County, DOT, and the Phillipses remain active in defending the case.

2.     Motion to Bifuracte

a.     Parties’ Positions

The DOT moves to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of the trial, contending (a) the DOT will be prejudiced if the jury hears the damages evidence before deciding liability, and (b) judicial economy will be served by bifurcation because a trial on the issue of damages will not be necessary if the jury finds in Defendants’ favor on the issue of liability.

The City joins the motion, but does not add additional analysis. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  They argue liability is not reasonably in dispute in this case, and is certainly not in dispute as to Co-Defendant, Phillips, such that a damages phase of the trial will ultimately be necessary.  They argue bifurcation will only serve to lengthen the trial, increase costs, and raise the likelihood of loss of jurors due to Covid.  They contend their witnesses have already been advised to ensure they are available for the currently scheduled trial date, and note that two of the plaintiffs live in Idaho and have made plans to fly in for the trial. 

b.     Law Governing Bifurcation of Liability from Damages

Bifurcation is the procedure whereby the court may order separate trials of issues of parties joined in a single action.  The objective of bifurcation is to avoid wasting time and money on the trial of damages issues if the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.  A party seeking bifurcation should request such relief as soon as the need becomes apparent.  Delay may be a factor affecting the court’s exercise of discretion.  Generally, the court has the inherent power to regulate the order of trial and, therefore, can entertain a motion to bifurcate at any time, even during the trial.  However, where bifurcation is sought pursuant to CCP §598 (e.g., to obtain bifurcation of liability issue), the order must be made no later than 30 days before trial.  (I.e., the motion must be heard and order made more than 30 days before trial.)

Pursuant to CCP §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.”

c.     Analysis

The decision of whether or not to bifurcate this trial is a difficult one.  The Court understands that evidence of damages may be prejudicial to Defendants, in light of Decedent’s status as a young police officer with a bright future ahead prior to the accident.  The Court is also not swayed by Plaintiffs’ argument that the denial of Defendants’ summary judgment motions means liability is not seriously contested.

On the other hand, the Court does agree with Plaintiffs’ assertion that a damages trial will likely ultimately be necessary in this case.  The possibility that the jury will not find any of the defendants, including the driver Phillips, even partly liable for Decedent’s death is very low.  If any defendant is found to be proportionately liable, a damages phase will be necessary.  The Court is also swayed by Plaintiffs’ arguments that they have their witnesses ready and scheduled for the current trial, which is only a month away, and that convening two separate trials will not be efficient.

The Court would consider, at most, bifurcating the trial with the damages phase scheduled to go forward immediately after a determination on the liability phase.  If the Court decides such bifurcation is proper, the same jury would remain empaneled, and the damages phase would commence immediately following the liability phase.

The Court wishes to hear from Counsel, at oral argument, concerning the pros and cons of bifurcating the trial in the manner suggested.