Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: BC668642, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC668642    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/9/22                                                              TRIAL DATE: 1/3/23

Case #BC668642

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Motion filed on 8/12/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lundgren Management and Defendant Newhall Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata and Maria Del Rosario Arroyo

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order: (1) bifurcating the liability and damages issues at trial, with Defendants’ alleged duty to Plaintiffs and alleged breach of the same being tried before Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages; (2) excluding from the liability phase of trial any references to the injuries and damages at issue; and (3) requiring all parties to instruct each witness to refrain from making any reference to Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries or damages during the trial of the liability issues.

RULING: The motion is denied. 

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Defendants have failed to bookmark the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion.  While it appears Plaintiffs attempted to bookmark the exhibit attached to the declaration, the bookmark is not linked to the first page of the exhibit.  Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in  matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. 

This action arises from an incident that occurred on 6/13/16 at the Old Orchard Elementary School which is in Defendant Newhall Unified School District (Newhall).  Plaintiffs Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata (Mata) and Maria Del Rosario Arroyo (Arroyo) (collectively, Plaintiffs) allege that Mata, while in the course and scope of his employment with Hector Lopez dba HN Construction Services (HN), was in the process of dismantling, removing, and/or transporting the modular classroom when the walls and/or roof collapsed onto him.  Defendant Lundgren Management (Lundgren) was hired by Newhall to help manage contracts between Newhall and other contractors performing renovation work for Newhall.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated the project and/or created a dangerous condition (the modular classroom and surrounding areas); failed to protect/guard against or warn of the dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Mata; and/or failed to act with reasonable care all of which Plaintiffs allege caused a modular classroom to collapse onto Mata. 

On 8/12/22, Lundgren and Newhall filed the instant motion seeking an order: (1) bifurcating the liability and damages issues at trial, with Defendants’ alleged duty to Plaintiffs and alleged breach of the same being tried before Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages; (2) excluding from the liability phase of trial any references to the injuries and damages at issue; and (3) requiring all parties to instruct each witness to refrain from making any reference to Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries or damages during the trial of the liability issues.

The Court finds that the instant motion is timely and procedurally proper as a noticed motion at this stage of the proceedings.  See CCP 598; CCP 1048(b); McLellan (1972) 23 CA3d 343, 353.  However, the Court denies the motion for other reasons.

Throughout the motion, Lundgren and Newhall seem to waiver between requesting bifurcation of the liability and damages issues, with Defendants’ alleged duty to Plaintiffs and alleged breach of such duty being tried before Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and requesting bifurcation of  the liability and damages issues with only Defendants’ alleged duty to Plaintiffs being tried before all other issues (i.e., breach, causation and damages). 

In the notice of motion and in certain parts of the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, Defendants seek an order bifurcating the liability and damages issues at trial, with Defendants’ alleged duty to Plaintiffs and alleged breach of the same being tried before Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages.  (See Motion p.1:25-p.2:2, p.4:18-22, p.7:11-17).  However, in other parts of the motion, Defendants seem to focus only on bifurcating the issue of duty from the remainder of the elements/issues (i.e., breach, causation and damages).  (See Motion, p.7:1-2).  Defendants argue that the issue of duty is relatively narrow and then jump to arguing that the issue of injuries and damages is more complicated without discussing the issue of breach.  (See Motion p.7:18-p.8:1). 

Similarly, in the reply, Defendants focus on bifurcating the issue of duty, or the issues of duty and causation, from damages without addressing breach.  (See Reply p.4:17-26, p.6:11, p.8:5-8, p.8:14-15).  In the reply, Defendants argue: 

The liability issues presented here are more simple – Defendants’ duty issue is not about “what fell on [Plaintiff Diaz Mata]” or “who pulled him out” or testimony from jobsite workers and first responders. Balam Declaration, ¶¶5 and 6. While these issues and observations might have bearing on Plaintiffs’ claimed damages and how his purported injuries occurred, they have no bearing at all on the straightforward liability issue of whether Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Diaz Mata.

(See Reply p.4:18-23)

If it is determined that Defendants owed Mata a duty, the liability issue could then be about “what fell on [Mata],” “who pulled him out,” and/or testimony from jobsite workers and first responders.  Defendants concede that such issues and observations might have bearing on how Mata’s purported injuries occurred which goes to the issues of breach and causation which Defendants ask to be tried before the damages phase.  Additionally, the issues of breach and causation may require/include reference to the injuries Mata claims as a result of the incident (i.e., to establish that Defendants breached a duty Plaintiffs claim Defendants owed to Mata and thereby caused his injuries, Plaintiffs will likely have state  how the incident occurred which will likely refer to Mata’s injuries).  Since there will be an overlap of evidence regarding breach, causation and damages, the bifurcation order requested will not promote efficiency, convenience or economy.

Similarly, any potential prejudice Defendants fear from the introduction of evidence regarding Plaintiffs’ injuries can be adequately addressed through a jury instruction.  (See CACI 5000:  "You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.").