Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV12298, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 22STCV12298 Hearing Date: June 3, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: June 3, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant T-A
Fashion (USA), LLC (“Plaintiff”)
Responding Party: Defendant
Mahmud Ulkarim and Defendant and Cross-Complainant Megna T Shirt Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
Motion to Bifurcate
The Court has
considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The motion is DENIED.
Background
This
is an action arising from breach of a lease agreement as to a commercial
property located at 947 South Alameda Street, Unit A, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, consisting of approximately 11,721 square feet of
commercial space within a larger multi-tenant property (the “Premises).
(Complaint, ¶ 8.) On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff T-A Fashion (USA), LLC
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Megna T Shirt Manufacturing
Company, Inc. (“Megna”), Mahmud Ulkarim (“Ulkarim”) (collectively “Defendants”),
and DOES 1 to 10.
On
May 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which identified
Michael Hong as DOE 1.
On
February 27, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court deemed the motions to
quash service of summons filed by Defendants Megna and Ulkarim as moot.
(02/27/23 Minute Order.)
On
April 14, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court denied the respective
motions to quash service of summons filed by Defendants Megna and Ulkarim and
ordered Defendants to respond to the Complaint by May 5, 2023. (04/14/23 Minute
Order.)
On
June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
against Defendants Megna and Ulkarim alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach
of Lease; (2) Breach of Guaranty; (3) Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; and
(4) Indemnification.
The
FAC alleges, in part, that Defendant Megna breached the lease by, among other
acts, failing to obtain permits required by the City prior to performing
alterations and electrical work in the Premises and failing to pay rent as
provided in the lease. (FAC, ¶¶ 34-35.) The FAC alleges that Defendant Ulkarim
executed a guaranty to the lease as the owner of Defendant Megna. (FAC, ¶ 20.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ulkarim breached the guaranty by, among other
acts, failing and refusing to pay rent and otherwise refusing to honor the
terms of the guaranty. (FAC, ¶ 44.)
On
July 18, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC, to
which Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On
October 25, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court denied Defendants’
motion to strike pertaining to the FAC and ordered Defendants to file an Answer
within 20 days. (10/25/23 Minute Order.)
On
November 15, 2023, Defendant Ulkarim filed an Answer to the FAC.
On
November 17, 2023, Defendant Megna filed an Answer to the FAC.
Also,
on November 17, 2023, Defendant Megna filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff
and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1)
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional
Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Declaratory Relief; and
(4) Negligence. The Cross-Complaint alleges, in part, that Plaintiff has been
negligent in the upkeep of the premises that Plaintiff has rented to Defendant
Megna. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 25.) The Cross-Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff
has interfered with Defendant Megna’s contracts with multiple third parties for
the manufacturing and sale of T-Shirts. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 7-10.)
On
December 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a demurrer and motion to strike as to the
Cross-Complaint.
On
February 21, 2024, after reviewing the moving documents in chambers, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on its
demurrer and motion to strike as to the Cross-Complaint. (02/21/24 Minute
Order.)
On
March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant Motion to Bifurcate
Trial. Plaintiff seeks an order that the causes of action in the FAC be
separately tried and precede any trial of the claims in the Cross-Complaint.
The motion is made on the grounds that a separate trial will be conducive to
avoiding prejudice and expediting timely trial of the FAC.
On
May 3, 2024, Defendant Megna filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the
Cross-Complaint.
Also,
on May 3, 2024, Defendant Megna filed the operative First Amended
Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) against Plaintiff alleging causes of action for: (1)
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional
Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Declaratory Relief; and
(4) Negligence. The FAXC arises from Defendant Megna’s renting of the Premises
and alleges, in part, that Plaintiff has engaged in a campaign of harassment
with excessive entries into the Premises, any violations are the fault of
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s conduct interfered with Defendant Megna’s business
and caused losses. (FAXC, ¶¶ 12-14.)
On
May 20, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to bifurcate, to
which Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 28, 2024.
Also,
on May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Answer to the FAXC.
Legal
Standard
A court “may order
a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action . . . or
of any issue or of any number of causes of action or issues” in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) “The
court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the
economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . .
. make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall
precede the trial of any other issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) “A trial court
has discretion to determine the order in which claims or issues are bifurcated
and determined, and the selection and scheduling of those phased determinations
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.” (Antelope
Valley Groundwater Cases (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 241, 273.) “In law and motion
practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor
Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)
Discussion
a.
Los Angeles Local Rule 3.25(f)(2)
Initially, Defendants argue that the motion to
bifurcate should be denied because it does not comply with Los Angeles Local
Rule, Rule 3.25(F)(2). (Opp’n at p. 2.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’
contention that a motion for bifurcation cannot be heard prior to the final
status conference is without merit.
Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles Local Rules, Rule 3.25(f)(2)
provides that “[i]n a direct calendar case, the parties must file and serve any
trial preparation motions and dispositive motions, other than summary judgment
motions, including motions in limine or bifurcation motion, with timely statutory
notice so as to be heard on the day of the final status conference.” At a case
management conference, the Court may take appropriate action such as
determining “[w]hether the case should be bifurcated or a hearing should be set
for a motion to bifurcate under Code of Civil Procedure section 598.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.727(a)(10).)
The
Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the motion is procedurally improper.
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Local
Rules, Rule 3.25(f)(2) does not mandate denial of a motion for bifurcation
that is set for hearing prior to the final status conference. Moreover,
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.727(a)(10) contemplates the Court hearing a
motion to bifurcate prior to the final status conference.
Therefore,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is not procedurally
improper and will consider the motion on its merits.
b.
Appropriateness of Bifurcation
Initially,
the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is premised on the
Cross-Complaint being an operative pleading and Plaintiff argues that such
pleading lacks any supporting facts or subject matter and therefore would be
definitionally unrelated to the subject matter of the FAC. (Memorandum of
Points and Authorities at p. 6:15-25.)
The
Court, however, notes that the FAXC is now the operative pleading and contains
allegations as to the Premises and is factually related to the FAC as both
pleadings concern the lease and wrongful actions pertaining to the Premises. On
reply, Plaintiff argues that the FAXC does nothing to advance any evidentiary
support for its frivolous allegations and do not evidence anything in common
with the factual allegations of the FAC.
The
Court disagrees with Plaintiff. The FAXC and FAC do concern some of the same
factual allegations. Moreover, it appears that the crux of Plaintiff’s motion
is that the Cross-Complaint and FAXC contain frivolous allegations. The Court
finds that if Plaintiff takes issue with the allegations of the FAXC then
Plaintiff may challenge such pleading by demurrer or motion to strike. The
Court reminds Plaintiff that is current pending demurrer and motion to strike,
which are set for hearing on October 16, 2024, are directed at the
Cross-Complaint, which is no longer an operative pleading in this action. (Lee v.
Bank of America (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 197, 215 [“An amended [cross]
complaint supersedes all prior [cross] complaints.”].)
Plaintiff
further argues that bifurcation is appropriate because this action has been
pending since April 12, 2022 and that its sole source of income is rental
payments to the Premises, which have not been paid since January 2022.
(Memorandum of Points and Authorities at p. 6:8-14; Abramson Decl., ¶¶ 6, 11.)
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that if the motion for bifurcation is denied and
trial were to be delayed until after the October 16, 2024 hearing on the
demurrer and motion to strike, Plaintiff will suffer severe financial hardship.
(Abramson Decl., ¶ 11.)
The
Court finds that the declarations of Michael A. Abramson and Kevin Bemel
submitted in support of the motion do not warrant bifurcation. The declaration
of Mr. Abramson is mostly a recitation of the procedural history of this
action, Plaintiff’s qualms with Defendants’ discovery responses, and the
purported frivolous allegations of the Cross-Complaint. (Abramson Decl., ¶¶
4-10.) The declaration of Mr. Bemel reiterates the point raised in Mr.
Abramson’s declaration that if the instant motion is denied, Plaintiff will
suffer severe financial hardship. (Bemel Decl., ¶ 5.)
The
Court notes that neither the declaration of Mr. Abramson nor the declaration of
Mr. Bemel explicitly states that the convenience of witnesses, the ends of
justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation will be
furthered by bifurcation. While
the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has alleged the nonpayment of rent in the
FAC and counsel has attested to such nonpayment continually accruing since
January 2022 (Abramson Decl., ¶ 11), which alludes to prejudice, such fact does
not warrant bifurcation as the Court finds that allowing two trials of
overlapping factual issues is not conducive to judicial economy.
c. Tertiary Arguments
The Court will address
the tertiary arguments raised by Plaintiff. The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s
contention that Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.714 sets forth a goal that 100
percent of unlimited civil cases are disposed of within 24 months. (Cal. Rules
of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1).) The Court also acknowledges Plaintiff’s contention
that “judges shall have the responsibility to eliminate delay in the progress
and ultimate resolution of litigation . . . and to compel attorneys and
litigants to prepare and resolve all litigation without delay.” (Gov. Code §
68607.) However, Defendant Megna was entitled to file the Cross-Complaint and
FAXC. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10.) The Court reminds Plaintiff that this action
must be brought to trial within five years after commencement. (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 583.310.) Here, this action has only been pending for a little over two years
and the parties have been engaged in motion practice.
Based on the foregoing, the motion to
bifurcate filed by Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant T-A Fashion (USA), LLC is
DENIED.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
June 3, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court