Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV13308, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 19STCV13308    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party:  Defendant Summerland Partners, Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED in part. The Motion is granted such that issues of punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition are BIFURCATED. The Motion is denied as to bifurcation of liability and compensatory damages.

BACKGROUND:

        On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff Zee Property Management, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendant Summerland Partners, Inc. on causes of action for trespass to trees and negligence.

        On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint against Defendant on the same causes of action.

        On July 27, 2020, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to strike as to the First Amended Complaint’s Prayer, ¶ 5.

        On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer.

        On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion to Bifurcate Trial. Defendant concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

        The Motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“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 . . . 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.)

“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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)

II.        Discussion

Defendant requests that, until such time that the jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud, the Court bifurcate: (1) liability and damage issues; (2) the issue of punitive damages; and (3) any evidence on Defendant’s financial condition. (Motion, p. 10:25­–28.)

The Motion is unopposed.

The Court does not have any evidence before it that would indicate bifurcation of Trial in the manner Defendant requests would prejudice Plaintiff.

The Court is required to bifurcate the Trial as to the evidence on Defendant’s financial condition. (Civ. Code, § 3295.) The Court is also required to bifurcate the Trial as to the issue of punitive damages.

However, bifurcation of Trial as to issues of liability and non-punitive damages would not further convenience and judicial economy. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, subd. (b).) The trial is scheduled as a 3-4 day jury trial.  Bifurcation of liability and damages would likely lead to a tax on judicial economy as more time for Trial might well be needed.

Thus, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate. The Motion is granted such that issues of punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition are BIFURCATED from the initial Trial in this matter until such time that the Trier of Fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. The Motion is denied as to bifurcation of liability and non-punitive damages.