Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: BC690815, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs The Estate of Anisa Farhadi, Tom Farhadi, and Doris Mares bring this action for legal malpractice against Defendants Geragos & Geragos, APC, Mark J. Geragos, Ben J. Meiselas, and Greg Kirakosian. Plaintiffs allege Defendant attorneys represented Plaintiffs in an underlying medical malpractice action, The Estate of Anisa Farhadi v. West Hills Hospital and Medical Center, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC564525. Plaintiffs allege Defendants committed legal malpractice in their representation of Plaintiffs by failing to file an opposition to the defendant medical providers’ motion for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ underlying action.

Defendants now move to bifurcate the trial into two phases: the first phase addressing the trial within a trial of Plaintiff’s underlying medical malpractice action forming the basis of this legal malpractice action (proximate causation); and the second phase, if necessary, addressing the remainder of Plaintiff’s malpractice action (standard of care, breach and damages). Plaintiff opposed.

“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 . . . .” (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.)

Defendants move to bifurcate the trial into two phases: the first phase addressing the “trial within a trial” of Plaintiff’s underlying medical malpractice action forming the basis of this legal malpractice action (proximate causation); and the second phase, if necessary, addressing the remainder of Plaintiff’s malpractice action (standard of care, breach and damages). [FN 1]

This action arises from an underlying case in which the Defendant-attorneys represented Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action against various medical providers arising from the alleged wrongful death of Anisa Farhadi. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant-attorneys committed legal malpractice by “fail[ing] to file an Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) As a consequence, “[t]he Court thereafter granted the Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs,” which had the “legal effect of the Plaintiffs' case being dismissed on February 8, 2017.” (Id.)

In support of bifurcation, Defendants argue that “to prove causation in Plaintiffs’ claim asserting negligence, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that, absent Defendants’ alleged malpractice, they would have successfully prosecuted the underlying claims against the medical providers.” (Mtn. 4: 15-17.) With that in mind, Defendants argue “bifurcation would promote judicial efficiency and economy, avoid unnecessary costs and delay, as well as prevent undue prejudice to Defendants.” (Mtn. 4: 18-20.)

Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation. They argue bifurcation is not warranted because the initial trial in this case before Judge Mel Red Recana “proceeded efficiently without bifurcation.” (Opp. 2: 5-6.) Plaintiffs further contend that the “issues of legal malpractice and medical malpractice are connected,” and the case “could not accurately be explainable to the jury if the issues are bifurcated.” (Opp. 2: 21-26.)

However, Plaintiffs do go on to argue that “the jury must hear about the medical malpractice first to understand why Defendants committed legal malpractice.” (Opp. 7: 26-28.) Only then, Plaintiffs say, should the jury “get to the legal malpractice portion of the case.” (Opp. 8: 2-3.)

“To prove a legal malpractice cause of action, the plaintiff must show: (1) a duty by the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence.” (Redante v. Yockelson (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 1356.)

“In a legal malpractice claim, the method for proving the element of causation has been likened to a ‘trial within a trial’ or a ‘case within a case.’” (Ambriz v. Kelegian (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1519, 1531.) “The case-within-a-case or trial-within-a-trial approach applied in legal malpractice cases [is] an objective approach to decide what should have been the result in the underlying proceeding or matter. [Citation.]” (Id.) “[A] client claiming that his [or her] attorney was negligent in connection with litigation has the burden of proving that damages resulted, this burden involving, usually, the difficult task of demonstrating that, but for the negligence complained of, the client would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action in question. [Citation.]” (Dawson, 109 Cal. App. 4th at 398 [cleaned up].)

Here, the allegations underlying the alleged negligence—that is, the failure to file an opposition to the medical provider’s motion for summary judgment—are relatively straightforward. However, whether Plaintiffs would have ultimately prevailed in the malpractice action is another matter. This essentially requires them to re-litigate the underlying medical malpractice action.

Thus, Plaintiffs have the initial hurdle—a high one—to “establish that but for the alleged negligence of the defendant attorney[s], [they] would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action in which the malpractice allegedly occurred.” (Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1232, 1241.) If they cannot do this from the outset, the case is over.

Therefore, it could make some sense to try this issue first, given that a finding on this causation issue could potentially moot the remaining duty, breach, and damages issues. Plaintiff even concedes the jury should consider the causation issue first. (See Opp. 7: 26-28 [arguing “the jury must hear about the medical malpractice first to understand why Defendants committed legal malpractice.”].)

Be that as it may, here, Defendants have not demonstrated that bifurcation will promote “the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation” in any significant way. (CCP § 598.) Further, Defendants have not shown they will be unduly prejudiced without bifurcation.

The causation question is factually complex and will be the most time consuming at trial. The breach issue, on the other hand, would appear relatively straightforward. Thus, assuming the causation issue is tried first, the breach issue can be easily tacked on later without causing any significant burden to the parties, court, or jury. In other words, bifurcation will hardly promote trial economy or efficiency. In fact, bifurcation may do the opposite, requiring multiple witnesses to testify in two separate trials.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email atSmcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.