Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03367, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03367    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a traffic collision involving a bicycle.  On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff Alvin Corral (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Jacob Michael Deimler (erroneously sued as Jacob Michael Deimier) (“Defendant”) alleging a single cause of action for Negligence.    

Defendant now moves to continue the trial and to bifurcate liability from damages at trial.  Plaintiff opposes the motion to bifurcate only and Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS

1.     Motion to Continue Trial

            California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c), provides:

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1)  The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)  The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)  The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)  The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5)  The addition of a new party if:

(A)  The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B)  The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6)  A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7)  A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

Factors the Court considers in ruling on a motion for continuance include:

(1)  The proximity of the trial date;

(2)  Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3)  The length of the continuance requested;

(4)  The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5)  The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)  If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)  The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)  Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)  Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Rule 3.1332(d).)

            Defendant argues there is good cause to continue the trial, which is currently scheduled for July 14, 2025, because Defendant determined from Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories 6.2 and 6.3 and from Plaintiff’s deposition responses regarding Plaintiff’s physical injuries and emotional distress that Defendant needs an additional physical examination of the Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is resisting, and Defendant needs time to attend an informal discovery conference and have the additional medical exam conducted.  Defendant notes that the Court’s first available date for an Informal Discovery Conference is showing as July 16, 2025.

            The Court does not find that Defendant has demonstrated good cause.  Specifically, the Complaint, which alleges physical and mental injuries resulting from Plaintiff colliding with Defendant’s vehicle while riding a bicycle, was filed nearly two years ago on July 25, 2023.

            Plaintiff’s verified form interrogatory responses are dated November 8, 2023.  (Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s deposition was conducted on March 7, 2024.  Yet the parties did not meet and confer regarding physical and mental examinations until March 2025.  (Nelms Decl. ¶ 8.)  The Court notes that Defendant’s current counsel did not associate in as counsel of record until October 30, 2024 and did not substitute in as counsel of record until November 8, 2024.  (Nelms Decl. ¶ 2.)  However, counsel does not substantiate the additional 4-5 month delay in meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel.   

            Counsel determined that separate medical examinations for Plaintiff’s head/back/spine injuries and knee injuries were warranted, in addition to a mental examination for Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress.  (Nelms Decl. ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff’s mental exam went forward on April 15, 2025, and the physical examination of Plaintiff’s knee went forward on May 1, 2025.  (Nelms Decl.¶ 9.)  However, Plaintiff has objected to the physical examination of his spine as cumulative.  (Nelms Decl. ¶ 11.)

            As such, the Court finds that Defendant has not been diligent in pursuing discovery, despite being on notice that both physical and mental exams were potentially relevant since the Complaint was filed in July of 2023, and by the time Plaintiff’s deposition was conducted in early March of 2024.   

Moreover, the Court notes that the trial in this action was set on January 18, 2024, and at the Status Conference of June 20, 2024, the Court advised the parties about trial continuances vis-à-vis discovery, admonishing the parties to complete their discovery to obviate the need for a trial continuance.  Further, despite what the public calendar shows, the Court is always willing to accommodate parties by scheduling an earlier IDC, if available when the parties inquire through court staff. 

            Therefore, Defendant has not shown good cause for the Court to continue the trial date.        

2.     Motion to Bifurcate

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 provides:

(b) 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.

Further, Code of Civil Procedure Section 598 provides:

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, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, 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, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time.

Defendant requests bifurcating the liability stage from the damages stage of trial, based upon the parties’ witness testimony estimates, which equal 2 to 3 days for liability, and at least 7, if not upwards of 10-12 days for the damages stage of trial.  (Nelms Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)  Furthermore, Defendant argues that it has a strong argument in defense, that the collision occurred because Plaintiff was riding his bicycle negligently.  If Defendant prevails at the liability phase, the damages phase would be unnecessary, but if Plaintiff prevails, Defendant argues, there will have been no harm done by bifurcating the trial.

Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that liability and damages issues are “so intertwined” that bifurcation would effectively require the parties to try the same set of facts twice. Specifically, Plaintiff lists four percipient witnesses Plaintiff contends have testimony going to both liability and damages. 

The Court is unconvinced at this juncture that bifurcation of liability and causation/damages will promote judicial economy and be efficient for the parties and witnesses as well as the Court.  Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request to bifurcate the trial without prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to continue trial and denies, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate liability from causation/damages.

 Defendant shall provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such forthwith.

DATED:  June 10, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court