Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV20055, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20055    Hearing Date: December 11, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 11, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant PG Imtech of California

Responding Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Kathleen M. Saylor and Patricia A. Marrero

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

PLAINTIFF/CROSS-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 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff PG Imtech of California, LLC filed a complaint against Defendants Kathleen M. Saylor and Patricia A. Marrero, asserting causes of action for (1) specific performance; and (2) breach of written contract. Plaintiff, a commercial tenant of Defendants, alleges it exercised an option in the lease to purchase the property from Defendants. Plaintiff alleges the parties could not agree on a sales price; Plaintiff seeks specific performance to purchase the property at the appraisal value Plaintiff obtained.

On October 2, 2023, Saylor and Marrero filed a cross-complaint against PG Imtech for declaratory relief regarding interpretation of the appraisal provision in the option to purchase in the lease.

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.)

Plaintiff moves for an order bifurcating trial between the equitable and legal claims in the complaint and cross-complaint. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should determine the claims for specific performance and declaratory relief in a bench trial before sending the claim for breach of contract to the jury.

In opposition, Defendants argue that this could essentially deprive Defendants of their right to a jury trial by requiring the Court make factual determinations that should be made by the jury. The Court agrees. Though it is common for Courts to bifurcate equitable and legal claims, to try the equitable claims here before submitting the dispute to the jury for factual findings could greatly prejudice Defendants.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.