Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00239, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19CMCV00239 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: A
19CMCV00239
Carlos E. Oliva v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint, filed on August 16,
2019, alleges that on May 15, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Kia Sorento
manufactured or distributed by Defendant, Kia Motors America (KIA). Plaintiff
alleges that the vehicle developed defects during the period of warranty that
Defendant was unable to repair and failed to promptly replace the vehicle or
make restitution. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violation of Civ.
Code, § 1793 (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act or SBA), and for breach of
express and implied warranty of merchantability.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Motion filed December 5, 2022
Defendant moves to bifurcate trial
with the first phase directed to addressing Plaintiff’s core SBA claim for liability
against Defendant from the second phase for civil penalties for Defendant’s
willful violation of its obligations under the SBA. Defendant argues that Plaintiff
cannot prevail on the claim for civil penalties, which requires evidence that Defendant
willfully violated the SBA, unless Plaintiff first establishes his core SBA
claim. Defendant contends this court adopted the sanctions order issued by the
Hon. Judge Long supporting bifurcation.
Defendant argues that bifurcation
will be convenient for the court and the parties’ witnesses. The issue of civil
penalty examines Kia’s policies and procedures for handling pre-suit claims,
what and when Kia knew, and how Kia responded to Plaintiff’s demands. These
witnesses will not be needed to defend against liability. While the court
ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding evidentiary issues, Plaintiff
has not responded to Defendant’s attempts.
B.
Opposition filed December 15,
2022.
Plaintiff argues the motion is untimely
filed and served based on a December 29, 2022, hearing date. Defendant
disregarded the court’s order to respond to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Trial
Brief regarding evidentiary sanctions, which was very specific.
The Plaintiff’s core case and the
civil penalty case cannot be delineated as Defendant attempts to argue. Defendant
incorrectly states the court adopted sanction #3 calling for bifurcation of
trial. However, the court reserved the issue.
C.
Reply filed December 21, 2022
Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments,
the court should deem the motion timely under the circumstances, or the court
should grant the motion on its own. Defendant contends that it did not fail to
comply with the court’s order to meet and confer about evidentiary issues and
sanctions. Plaintiff did not address the issue of evidentiary overlap, which is
speculative. Defendant argues that its motion meets the criteria for
bifurcation. Defendant acknowledges that if Plaintiff should prevail on the
first stage, the second phase is a “slam dunk;” Defendant cannot oppose
evidence that it acted willfully. Reply 3: 3-7.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The time for filing a motion to
bifurcate is "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, … .” Code Civ. Proc., § 598. Given the
court’s order reserving the issue of bifurcation, this issue is rendered moot.
M.O. 10/26/22. While this motion was originally set to be heard on December 29,
2022, it should have been served by December 2, 2022, to provide 16 court days
of notice increased by two court days for electronic service. Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1005 subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6 subd. (a)(3)(A). Regardless,
Plaintiff timely filed an opposition, which the court has considered. Plaintiff
has not shown any prejudice resulting from the untimely service. Additionally,
it is well settled that a party’s appearance at the hearing and opposition to
the motion on its merits without a request for a continuance “is a waiver of
any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion.” Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.
As the moving party, Defendant’s
burden is to establish that bifurcation will promote the ends of justice or the
economy and efficiency of handling the litigation. Code Civ. Proc., § 598. Bifurcation is appropriate in cases
where the “liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff and bifurcation
will avoid the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of
damage questions.” Trickey v. Superior Court in and For
Sacramento County (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 650, 653.
The
statute’s primary purpose is 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.” Foreman & Clark Corp. v.
Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888, fn. 8. Whether a single action should be bifurcated is a
matter within the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be
disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ohio
Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086.
IV.
DISCUSSION
The Hon. Thomas D. Long previously
imposed an evidentiary sanction against Defendant precluding evidence to
establish its conduct was not willful, which was relevant to the civil
penalties claim. M.O. 5/23/22, p.8. On October 26, 2022, this court adopted
Judge Long’s order with changes. In pertinent part, the court adopted Sanctions
No. 1 and 2 together, precluding evidence against “willfulness” and that the
jury shall award civil penalties automatically to the Plaintiff if he obtains a
verdict in his favor, with the jury to determine the appropriate of amount of
penalties. M.O. 10/26/22, p. 1. The court reserved the remaining sanction
issues including bifurcation. Id.
To
prevail on a claim for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the
Plaintiff has the burden of proving that “(1) the vehicle had a nonconformity
covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or
safety of the vehicle (the non-conformity element); (2) the vehicle was
presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle
for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his
representative did not repair the non-conformity after a reasonable number of
repair attempts (the failure to repair element)." Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th
1094, 1101; CACI 3200.
Additionally, the court “may
impose a civil penalty up to two times the amount of actual damages if the
buyer proves the manufacturer's failure to comply was willful." Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th
112, 136; Civ. Code, § 1794 subd. (c); .
A violation is “not willful if the defendant's failure to replace or refund was
the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the
statutory obligation were not present.” Jensen at 136. The jury
considers factors such as "whether: (1) the manufacturer knew the vehicle
had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of
attempts, and (2) whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the
requirement to repair or replace. (Id. at pp. 185-186.) Jensen at 136; CACI 3244.
Defendant has not met its burden
of establishing that bifurcation will serve judicial efficiency or the
convenience of any witnesses. Defendant attempts to demarcate the evidence
required to establish civil penalties, which will not be relevant at the
liability phase. Defendant contends that civil penalties involve only questions
of Kia’s policies and procedures for handling pre-suit claims. However, the
court previously precluded Defendant from introducing evidence disputing that
its conduct was willful; if liability is found, the civil penalty is
“automatic,” and the amount of the penalty would be determined by the jury.
M.O. 10/26/22. Those questions will not be “addressed” in phase two as
Defendant contends. Motion, 4:21-23.
Defendant next contends that
bifurcation will prevent the “overlap” of the evidence. Defendant has not demonstrated
what evidence on the issue of the amount of civil penalty would
otherwise be relevant and admissible in the liability phase. Moreover, "it
is frequently the case that evidence which is admissible to establish one issue
may tend to establish another issue than that for which it is offered, and it
is the rule (in the absence of a proper request for limitation) that evidence
so introduced is available to establish any of the issues in the case." Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 887. In that case, the rule of limited admissibility applies, and "the
court upon request shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct
the jury accordingly.” Evid. Code, § 355.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED.