Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01395, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01395    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/15/25                                                             TRIAL DATE: 4/21/25

Case #23CHCV01395

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Motion filed on 11/25/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Zekai Yildiz

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Guillermo Velazquez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order bifurcating the liability issues from the damages issues in the trial of this action so that liability may be tried prior to damages. 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 5/23/22 at the intersection of Balboa Blvd. and Woodley Ave. in Los Angeles, California.  Plaintiff Guillermo Velazquez (Plaintiff) was driving southbound on Balboa Blvd. when he made a left turn onto Woodley Ave. and collided with the vehicle driven by Defendant Zekai Yildiz (Defendant) who was traveling northbound on Balboa Blvd. and driving for Lyft at the time of the collision.  Liability for the collision is disputed. 

On 5/10/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  On 7/5/23, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint to add Lyft, Inc. in place of Doe 1.  On 7/11/23, Defendant answered the complaint. 

On 11/25/24, Defendant filed and served the instant motion for an order bifurcating the liability issues from the damages issues in the trial of this action so that liability may be tried prior to damages.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

The Court has wide discretion to bifurcate issues for trial.

CCP 1048(b) provides:

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.”

See also CCP 598.

Courts may order separate phases of trial for issues of liability and damages.  See American Motorist Insurance Co. (1998) 68 CA4th 864, 872-873.  A trial court’s discretion regarding a decision to bifurcate will only be disturbed on appeal upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion.  See Downey Savings & Loan Association (1987) 189 CA3d 1072, 1086; Grappo (1991) 235 CA3d 496, 504.

The Court finds that bifurcating the trial of this action so that the issue of liability is tried before the issue of damages will simplify and organize the presentation of evidence which will be conducive to expedition and economy for the parties and the court.

In this case, it appears that there will be little overlap in the testimony regarding liability and the damages claimed by Plaintiff.  As such, bifurcating the trial may avoid wasting time and money on the damage phase, if Defendant prevails on the liability phase.  See Trickey (1967) 252 CA2d 650, 653; Foreman & Clark Corp. (1971) 3 C3d 875, 888, fn.8; (Sargsyan Decl.).  Even if Defendant is found liable in the first phase of trial, such a finding may promote settlement rendering the second damages phase unnecessary. 

Plaintiff provides no authority to support the claim made in the opposition that Defendant must present evidence that he will prevail on liability in order to have the instant motion granted.    (See  Opposition, p.1:22-25, p.3:13-p.4:4).    

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.