Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV07655, Date: 2023-03-01 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: 20STCV07655    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party:  Defendants/Cross-Defendants Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, and Sherri Ann Rogers

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Zohar Management, LLC

Defendants/Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED in part. The Motion is granted such that issues of punitive damages 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 Defendants/Cross-Defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. The Motion is denied as to bifurcation of liability and non-punitive damages.

BACKGROUND:

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Zohar Management, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendants Holloway Drive, LLC, Lubov Azria, Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, Sherri Ann Rogers, Utopia Development, Inc., and Daniel Angelo Moizel. This action arises out of allegations of the breach of a real estate contract regarding four residential units located at 8451 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

On June 26, 2020, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendants Daniel Angelo Moizel and Utopia Development, Inc.

On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff amended its Complaint to substitute Doe 1 for Compass, Inc.

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.

On October 27, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Holloway Drive, LLC and Lubov Azria filed their Cross-Complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, and Sherri Ann Rogers.

On November 1, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On November 3, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Defendants Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, and Sherri Ann Rogers filed: (1) their Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; and (2) their Answer to Cross-Complainants’ Cross-Complaint.

On June 13, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Defendants filed their Motion to Bifurcate.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Opposition.

On July 6, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Defendants filed their Reply.

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

Defendants/Cross-Defendants move the Court to bifurcate the issue of liability from the issue of damages as trial. (Motion, p. 8:4–6.) Defendants/Cross-Defendants argue: (1) that the Court is authorized to determine the order of proof; (2) that bifurcation will serve the interests of convenience, efficiency, economy, the ends of justice, and promote settlement; and (3) that bifurcation will avoid undue prejudice to Defendants/Cross-Defendants, and will result in no prejudice to Plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 4:9, 5:5–6, 7:7–8.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that the Motion fails to demonstrate any of the essential facts that must be proved to warrant bifurcation of trial; and (2) that the Motion must be denied because it is predicated upon multiple false, unproven, and unprovable factual assertions that are not supported by any admissible evidence. (Opposition, pp. 1:2–4, 3:3–6.)

Defendants/Cross-Defendants reiterate their arguments in their Reply.

The Plaintiff has not argued that bifurcation of trial would prejudice Plaintiff, and the Court does not have any evidence before it that would indicate bifurcation of trial in the manner Defendants/Cross-Defendants request would prejudice Plaintiff.

Notably, none of the papers mentions punitive damages, which Plaintiff has prayed for. (First Amended Complaint, pp. 36:16–17, 36:25–26.)

Due to Defendants/Cross-Defendants’ Motion, the Court is required to bifurcate the trial as to the issue of punitive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 3295, subd. (d).) However, bifurcation of the trial as to issues of liability and non-punitive damages would not further convenience and judicial economy. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, subd. (b).) Rather, such a bifurcation would likely not be judicially economic as more time for Trial might be needed overall.

III.     Conclusion

Defendants/Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED in part. The Motion is granted such that issues of punitive damages 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 Defendants/Cross-Defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. The Motion is denied as to bifurcation of liability and non-punitive damages.