Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV19287, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 19STCV19287    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Manuel Gonzalez,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

19STCV19287

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

General Motors, LLC,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: August 5, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Defendant General Motors, LLC

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS GRANTED.

 

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

 

BACKGROUND

           

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff Manuel Gonzalez’s purchase of a 2011 Buick Regal manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors LLC.

 

ANALYSIS

 

“Code of Civil Procedure section 598 allows a party to seek an order before trial ‘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,’ where ‘the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby ….’” (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 62, 90.)

 

Defendant moves for an order bifurcating trial. Defendant asks that its statute of limitations defense be tried first in a bench trial. Depending on the result, Plaintiff’s claims will be tried second. Defendant asserts that the facts related to the statute of limitations issue are undisputed, and judicial efficiency will be served by trying the SOL defense first without a jury.

 

Defendant’s motion is well-taken. “Defenses based on the statute of limitations are frequently bifurcated and tried separately from a plaintiff’s liability case.” Baxter v. Peterson (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 673, 678.  Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to show why trial should not be bifurcated.

 

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.