Michael Finn v. Raidu Krishna

MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF EQUITABLE FROM LEGAL CAUSES AT TRIAL

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Michael J. Finn and Rosanna C. Finn

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs Michael and Rosanna Finn own real property at 21110 Denker Ave, Torrance, CA.  Defendants Raidu Krishna and Sarda Krishna own or control the real property directly adjacent. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have failed to properly maintain the property, resulting in damage to Plaintiffs’ property. 

Plaintiffs now move to bifurcate the equitable and legal issues at trial. No opposition was filed.  [FN 1]

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

The current trial date of July 24, 2024, is VACATED.  A new trial date for the equitable claims will be set at the hearing.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Bifurcate

I. Legal Standard

Under section 598, “[t]he 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 . . . .” (Id., § 1048, subd. (b).) “It is within the discretion of the court to bifurcate issues or order separate trials of actions . . . and to determine the order in which those issues are to be decided.” (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.)

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs Michael and Rosanna Finn move to bifurcate the equitable and legal issues at trial. Plaintiffs seek to have the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title, Fourth Cause of Action for Good Neighbor Fence Act, and Fifth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief tried by the court in advance of the remaining causes of action.

“Where plaintiff's claims consist of a ‘mixed bag’ of equitable and legal claims, the equitable claims are properly tried first by the court.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1238.) California courts have a “preference for the trial of equitable issues before legal issues.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 146, 157.) The rationale for proceeding in this manner is that resolution of the equitable issues “may obviate the necessity for a subsequent trial of the legal issues,” thereby “promot[ing] judicial economy.” (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 1238.)

Quiet Title: It is “well established that actions to quiet title, like true declaratory relief actions, are generally equitable in nature.” (Caira v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 12, 25.) Here, Plaintiffs allege “they have a prescriptive easement for the northern side slope of the approach apron located within 21106 Denker.” (FAC ¶ 16.) They “are seeking to Quiet Title to their easement for the northern side slope of approach apron located on 21106 Denker for their continued use and unfettered access and to ensure that Defendants do not interfere with their lawful use of 21106 Denker.” (Id. ¶ 19.) 

Declaratory Relief: Declaratory relief actions “may raise either legal or equitable issues.” (Entin v. Superior Ct. (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 770, 777.) The “most important factor” in determining whether the action is legal or equitable is the type of relief sought. (Caira v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 12, 24.) Here, Plaintiffs seek various declarations, including, but not limited to, that they have a prescriptive easement over Defendants’ property. (FAC ¶¶ 59-61.)

Good Neighbor Fence Act: Civil Code section 841(b)(3) creates the presumption that adjoining “share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties” and are “equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.” However, the presumption may be overcome upon consideration of enumerated factors that “the court shall consider.” (§ 841(b)(3), emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs “desire to make needed repairs and perform maintenance to the existing wooden plank fence” and “seek to establish that Defendants are to share equally in the costs of necessary maintenance and repair to the wooden plank fence.” (FAC ¶¶ 56, 57.)

Based on the allegations and relief sought, the court construes the First, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action as primarily equitable in nature. There is also a substantial overlap between the equitable and legal claims at issue. Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy, the equitable claims should be tried first. By failing to oppose the motion, Defendants have not demonstrated any undue prejudice or other reasons that bifurcation is inappropriate.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   June 11, 2024 ___________________________________

FN 1-   Plaintiffs served the motion on Defendants electronically on May 14, 2024. (See Proof of Service.) Defendants also opposed Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to advance the hearing date, and are therefore aware of the pending motion to bifurcate.