Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV21766, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21766    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiffs Christian Gutierrez (“Christian”), a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Susana Alvarez, and Jose Gutierrez, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Susana Alvarez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendants American Textile Maintenance Company DBA Republic Master Chefs, Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., and Daniel Espino Corona (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained when they fell from the back of a commercial truck respectively owned and operated by Defendants. 

Defendants move to bifurcate the trial of this case into two phases: Liability and damages.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion and Defendants reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “[t]he 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 or any part thereof in the case[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 598; see also Plaza Tulare v. Tradewell Stores, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 522, 524 [“The objective of [Section 598] was the avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue was resolved against the plaintiff”].)  

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 empowers the court, in a jury trial, to try the issue of liability before the issue of damages upon motion of a party. That statute states that trial may be bifurcated  when the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice would be promoted thereby. On the record here, the trial court could properly conclude that while some evidence relating to damages would also be necessary on the issue of liability, only a small fraction of the evidence would be repeated so that the ends of justice were served by bifurcation.

(Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 737, 746 [cleaned up]; see also Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888, fn. 8 [“Such separate trial of the liability issue was considered desirable to avoid wasting court time in cases where the plaintiff loses on the liability issue, to promote settlements where the plaintiff wins on the liability issue, and to afford a more logical presentation of the evidence, thus simplifying the issues for the jury”].) 

Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b), “[t]he 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…or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendants argue that the Court should exercise its authority to bifurcate the issue of Defendants’ liability, because bifurcation will serve judicial economy, efficiency, the convenience of witnesses, and the ends of justice.  Specifically, Defendants assert that the issues of Defendants’ alleged liability are relatively straightforward compared to the issues of Plaintiffs’ damages – which will require extensive testimony by numerous expert witnesses (65 retained and non-retained experts per Defendants) which may prejudice Defendants by invoking the sympathy of the jury with respect to Plaintiffs’  claimed injuries which are significant especially concerning Christian. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that bifurcation will result in a duplication of cost and effort because, based on the evidence, a damages phase is all but certain.  Plaintiffs further assert that bifurcation would not cure any alleged “sympathy of the jury” prejudice as the jury will witness the extent of Christian’s claimed injuries merely from his appearance and conduct. 

The Court finds that Defendants have the better argument.  The Court agrees that, in contrast to those with respect to Plaintiffs’ damages, the issues with respect to Defendants’ alleged liability could potentially be determined in an initial phase such that bifurcation would  result in efficiencies and promote judicial economy. 

In particular, the Court notes that based upon the Joint Witness List filed on July 6, 2022, the parties have identified 94 witness with a total of 224 hours of anticipated testimony (which is approximately 37 days of trial excluding the other components of a trial including jury selection, opening statements and closing arguments).  With bifurcation, the first phase would be about 48.25 hours (which is approximately 8 days of trial excluding jury selection, opening statements and closing arguments).  And if Defendants should prevail after the first phase, a second phase related to damages of approximately 29 days would be unnecessary.  Equally important, the Court finds that the likelihood of undue prejudice to Defendants would be present should the trial proceed without bifurcation due to the severity of Plaintiffs’ injuries, including Christian’s injuries, which is evident by the sheer number of expert witnesses (retained and unretained) identified on the Joint Witness List.  That number of expert witnesses is 79 compared to 15 witnesses (parties and percipient) that may be called during the liability phase.[1]   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to bifurcate trial in this action into two phases:  Phase One – Liability and Phase Two – Damages, and orders the parties to revise the trial documents to reflect the two phases of the trial.  For example, the Joint Witness List and Joint Exhibit List should separate the witnesses and exhibits necessary for each phase.  All revised trial documents shall be filed with the Court on or before July 28, 2022 to ensure that the parties are ready for trial on August 1, 2022. 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.