Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV05504, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05504    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 7, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Defendant Dong H. Yom

Responding Party: Plaintiff Arthur D. Fong

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

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, 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.)

Defendant moves for an order bifurcating trial into a liability phase followed by a damages phase. Plaintiff and Defendant were in a romantic relationship for several years, ending in 2021. Plaintiff alleges the parties had a “pooling agreement” in which they agreed to treat as joint property the earnings, income, and property acquired during the relationship.

Defendant asserts that bifurcation will conserve time and resources. But Defendant does not show that bifurcation will do so. Defendant does not identify witnesses or give approximate timelines for each phase; the Court cannot determine from Defendant’s showing that a two-phase trial will be more efficient than trying the whole case in one phase. Defendant’s argument essentially is that if the jury agrees with Defendant on liability it need not reach damages. This is insufficient to establish a need for bifurcation.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.