Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV25666, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25666    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 7, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint

Motion to Bifurcate

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS GRANTED.

            PLAINTIFF 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 oppositions have been received.

BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff Peter Famulari filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles, asserting causes of action for (1) public nuisance; (2) private nuisance; (3) inverse condemnation; (4) denial of substantive due process; (5) dangerous condition on public property; (6) negligence; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) failure to repair dedicated street. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff’s real property is inaccessible due to the condition of the street surrounding the property. Plaintiff also alleges that the condition has caused him physical injury.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint

Matters occurring after the filing of a complaint may be brought into the action through a supplemental complaint. (See Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd. (1991) 23 Cal.App.4th 414, 426.) A supplemental pleading does not supersede the original but adds new allegations in conjunction with the original. (See Id.) Leave to amend to file a supplemental complaint is for the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse of that discretion. (See Id.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a supplemental complaint to add allegations regarding another injurious fall that occurred on September 7, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that a supplemental complaint is more efficient than filing an entirely new action. Defendant does not oppose the motion.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

B. Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate

“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 to try the inverse condemnation cause of action via bench trial before damages and liability on the personal injury causes of action are tried to the jury. Inverse condemnation is an issue for the court, not the jury. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.