Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19STCV40257, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 19STCV40257    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: O

Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc.’s, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s, Toyota Motor Corporation’s and DWWTR, Inc. dba Toyota of Riverside’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim is GRANTED.

Background   

Plaintiffs Alena Reyes-Greendale (“Reyes-Greendale”), Jessica Rosemary Barksdale (“Barksdale”), and Edith Flores and Rene Flores, individually and as the Successors-in-Interest to the Estate of Alexis Chantel Flores (“Flores”) (“collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On or about January 14, 2018, Barksdale was driving a 1998 Toyota 4Runner, Vehicle Identification No. JT3GN86R7W0079510 (“subject vehicle”) westbound on the SR-60 Pomona Freeway in Diamond Bar; Reyes-Greendale and Flores were passengers. The subject vehicle was involved in a rollover crash, which injured Reyes-Greendale and Barksdale and killed Flores.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”), Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota Motor Sales”), Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“TME&M North America”), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Toyota North America”), Toyota Motor Manufacturing, California, Inc. (“TMM California”), DWWTR, Inc. dba Toyota of Riverside (sued separately as “DWWTR, Inc. and “Toyota of Riverside”) (“DWWTR”) and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Strict Products Liability

2.                  Negligent Product Liability

3.                  Negligence

4.                  Breach of Warranty

5.                  Negligent Failure to Recall

6.                  Fraudulent Concealment

7.                  Violation of California’s False Advertising Law

8.                  Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law

9.                  Fraud

10.              Wrongful Death

11.              Survival Action

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed TMM California, without prejudice.

On March 3, 2021, this case was transferred from Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On July 6, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed TME&M North America, without prejudice.

The Final Status Conference is set for October 18, 2022. Trial is set for November 1, 2022.

Legal Standard

“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. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Toyota North America, Toyota Motor Sales, TMC and DWWTR move the court, per Civil Code § 3295, subdivision (d), for an order bifurcating the punitive damages phase of the action filed by Plaintiffs.

“While [Civil Code § 3295, subdivision (d)] refers only to evidence of the defendant's financial condition, in practice bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the amount of punitive damages is to be offered in the second phase, while the determination whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages (i.e., whether the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression) is decided in the first phase along with compensatory damages.” (Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907, 919 [emphasis theirs].)

The motion is granted.