Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV05549, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05549    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 9, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, Jake Zhu and Tomás Morales

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers

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.)

Defendants move to bifurcate trial between the two Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants assert that the employment claims of each Plaintiff involve different facts, different supervisors, and different campuses. Defendants argue that one trial would be unduly confusing to the jury and prejudicial to Defendants. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit together to conserve resources and consolidate witnesses. Plaintiffs represent that Plaintiffs will use many of the same witnesses, including experts, and evidence and that both Plaintiffs claims support each other’s theories that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination.

Although both Plaintiffs allege gender discrimination and harassment, each presents a different factual scenario. Weber’s case arises from the alleged acts of Defendant Morales, while Rogers’ claims are based on alleged acts of Defendant Zhu. The alleged acts of the two defendants took place at separate times, on separate campuses, with separate underlying facts. Trying the two cases together creates the risk of undue prejudice to Defendants, by potentially conflating the two scenarios, and allowing inflammatory evidence concerning one Plaintiff’s case to color the jury’s perception of the other Plaintiff’s case.

The Court has balanced these concerns with Plaintiffs’ interest in streamlining the trial, and that some witnesses’ testimony is applicable to both cases. The Court also recognizes that certain “me-too” evidence about one Plaintiff’s situation may be admissible in the other Plaintiff’s case. But trying the two cases together, even though they are based on different factual allegations, would preclude a full analysis under the law as to what evidence concerning one Plaintiff is admissible in the other Plaintiff’s case; by definition, the jury would hear all the evidence about both Plaintiffs at once. It also would preclude the Court from deciding whether “me-too” evidence involving other individuals may be admissible as to only one Plaintiff. That Plaintiffs made the strategic choice to bring both cases in the same complaint does not bind the Court to try both cases together. Here, the risk of undue prejudice to Defendants outweighs Plaintiffs’ interests in trying both cases together.

The Court finds that the interests of justice require bifurcating the trials of each Plaintiff. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Hearing Date: January 9, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers

Responding Party: Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, Jake Zhu and Tomás Morales

T/R:     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFFS 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.  

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a first amended complaint to expressly restate adverse employment actions taken by Defendant CSU against Plaintiff Dr. Weber (failure to promote and termination), which are already alleged in multiple other sections of the original Complaint, into her third cause of action for gender discrimination. Plaintiffs assert that this amendment is a minor clarification that does not add new facts or causes of action. Plaintiffs comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed in seeking amendment and that the amendment substantially changes the claims asserted.

The Court will allow amendment. The amendment does not add new facts or claims; Defendants will suffer no prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.