Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00061, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21LBCV00061 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: S27
Plaintiff, Morning Angel Home
Care, Inc. filed this action against Defendants, Country Villa Belmont Heights
Healthcare Center and Belmont Heights Healthcare Center, LLC for breach of contract,
account stated, quantum meruit, and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleges it entered into two
contracts with Defendants pursuant to which Plaintiff was to provide personnel
to Defendants for their nursing home; the two contracts had different payment
periods and payment rates, but were substantially similar, and contained
attorneys’ fees and costs provisions.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached both contracts. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached
Contract One and owe $8248 plus late fees, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached
Contract Two and owe $86,610 plus late fees, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
On 2/09/22, Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.
On 10/27/22, the Court heard
and denied Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement. The Court incorporates its 10/27/22 ruling
into this order by reference.
a.
Parties’ Positions
Defendants seek to bifurcate the issue of its “accord and
satisfaction” affirmative defense from the remainder of the case. Defendants contend they will likely prevail
on their affirmative defense, and that the remainder of the trial will not be
necessary if they do actually prevail.
They contend this could result in significant time savings in the event
they are successful.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. It argues Defendants are not likely to
succeed on the merits of their affirmative defense. It argues the issues are so intertwined that
bifurcation would not serve the ends of justice. It argues all issues put forth by way of the
complaint and the answer are jury issues, and it would not make sense to
empanel two separate juries in the event Plaintiff is successful in connection
with the affirmative defense.
Defendants, in reply, argue the issues presented by way
of the affirmative defense are entirely discreet from the issues presented by
way of the case in chief. Defendants
also argue that, while they did initially request a jury trial to preserve that
right, they are willing to waive that right and have the case tried by bench at
this juncture.
b.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendants, with their moving papers, seek judicial
notice of various documents in the court file.
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the documents have been
filed and that they are what they purport to be. The Court does not take judicial notice of
the truth of the matter asserted in any of the documents.
c.
Law Governing Bifurcation
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.
Also, the procedure is not limited to separate trials of liability and
damages; nor is it limited to dividing a case into only two parts. 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.”
d. Analysis
The Court finds this case is uniquely suited
for bifurcation. The issues relating to
the accord and satisfaction defense are, contrary to Plaintiff’s position in
opposition to the motion, unrelated to the case in chief. The issues relating to the accord and
satisfaction defense require the trier of fact to determine whether there was a
settlement and whether Defendants’ payment fully satisfied the settlement
agreement. If and only if the trier of
fact finds in favor of Plaintiff in connection with one or both of those issues
will the issues relating to the amount in controversy in connection with the
case in chief be ripe.
If the case were going to a jury trial,
the Court would be inclined to require the parties to present all of the facts
and evidence at the same time, in order to ensure multiple trials would not be
necessary. However, Defendants were the
ones who sought jury trial, and they have indicated a willingness to waive that
right and have a bench trial at this juncture.
The Court can easily hear the evidence relating to the affirmative
defense of accord and satisfaction first, then immediately proceed to hear the
evidence relating to the case in chief if it is necessary to do so.
The 7/07/23 FSC date remains on
calendar. The 7/10/23 jury trial date is
vacated and replaced with a 7/10/23 bench trial date. The parties must be prepared to try ALL
issues in the case when they appear for trial on 7/10/23; the Court will
immediately proceed to the second phase of the trial in the event the first
phase of the trial does not result in a finding in favor of the defense.
Defendants are ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit
on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative
as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If
the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting
on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be
placed off calendar. If a party
submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and
must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not
submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely
at the hearing on this matter.