Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV01265, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01265    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: R

This is a motion to bifurcate the equitable claims.  Plaintiff opposes.  (The joinder request is GRANTED.)

Whether to bifurcate is a discretionary decision and may be made as to a cause of action or issue within one.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048.)  And, unlike the federal system, in California equitable trials are generally held before jury trials when there is a bifurcation and the court’s decision on the equitable issues will be binding on the jury.  Because the issue is discretionary, the court puts little weight on the argument that plaintiff cannot be denied its right to a jury—that train left the station long ago—or that defendants waited too long—because the question is one of efficiency and economy, not fault.  The court also agrees with defendants that there are certain claims that are equitable in nature, including the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action.  While the court need not decide that defendants are right in all respects, plainly there are equitable aspects of the case that can be tried to the court.

The real question is whether bifurcating and trying the equitable matters first will result in efficiency.  The court notes that efficiency can only be accomplished if the equitable trial will very likely dispose of the issues to be tried to the jury once and for all, meaning that the jury will not have to hear the same evidence that the court heard during the equitable trial.  (Note that the converse is not true; if the jury trial is held first, the court will not need to hear the evidence again to decide the equitable issues.)  The problem with defendants’ position is that it presumes that they will win on the equitable claims.  Of course, if they do, then there is little left for the jury, if anything at all.  But if not, then the court sees little value in the equitable trial.  Virtually the same evidence will need to be heard all over again by the jury.  Specifically, if the court finds for plaintiff on one or more of the equitable claims, the court is not convinced that in deciding the remaining issues—like damages—virtually the same evidence will not have to be heard again.  Even to the extent that the court has made factual findings, it is far from clear that mere recitation of those findings will be sufficient.  Further, to the extent that the claims are based on the breach of an agreement (such as the improper reduction of plaintiff’s interest to zero), that will need to be tried to a jury regardless of the outcome of the equitable trial.  While the evidence might not be identical, it will significantly overlap.

At least at this point, the court is not convinced that holding the equitable trial first will in fact result in efficiency or judicial economy.  That is not to say that the court might not reconsider the issue when the trial is more imminent.  But for now, it is premature to bifurcate.

The motion to bifurcate is DENIED.