Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV30353, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30353    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 16, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Dighton Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ziad Alhassen

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS GRANTED.

            DEFENDANTS 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, opposition, and reply.

“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.)

The Dighton Defendants seek to try the equitable second cause of action for declaratory relief in a bench trial before the jury trial. The second cause of action seeks declarations regarding the existence of an oral agreement that granted Plaintiff part ownership of the Dighton entities. Defendants assert that if the Court finds the agreement does not exist and Plaintiff does not have an ownership interest in the Dighton entities, the causes of action against Dighton need not proceed before the jury. Defendants also argue that equitable causes of action should be tried before legal ones.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that bifurcation will not save resources because Plaintiff’s position is that all the entities, both Dighton and non-Dighton, are part of one enterprise. Plaintiff represents that declaratory judgment in favor of Dighton would not defeat the remaining causes of action and would only slow down the trial with duplicative evidence and effort.

The Court finds that bifurcation is appropriate. Courts regularly try equitable claims before jury claims, and resolution of this claim would narrow the claims against the Dighton entities. But the Court does not find at this time that resolution of this cause of action in Defendants’ favor necessarily resolves all claims against them. If Plaintiff seeks to prove his ownership of the Dighton entities under a different theory (such as single enterprise), the Dighton entities will not be relieved from the jury trial.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.