Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case BC695842 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Emmanuel and Lara Trousse (“The Trousses”) claim that in 2002, their mother Martine Palmaro-Trousse (“Martine”) entrusted to Defendants some $14.8 million (the “Inheritance Money”) that the Trousses had inherited from their late father, to be invested on the Trousses’ behalf because they were minors. Defendants were family-friends of the Trousses. To hold the Inheritance Money, Defendants established Delago Enterprises, LLC, Corelson, LLC, and Estate Investments, LLC (the “LLCs”). The Trousses allege that Defendants mishandled the Inheritance Money, misrepresented the state of affairs to the Trousses, and misappropriated millions of dollars from the LLCs.

On April 5, 2018, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs, and on December 31, 2019, filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (the “FACC”). Defendants filed requests for dismissal of various cross-claims on January 20, 2021 and February 4, 2021, the result of which was that only cross-claims against cross-defendant Martine Palmaro-Trousse for declaratory relief, breach of contract, fraud, and contractual interference remain.

Cross-Defendant now moves to bifurcate the trial in this matter so that the causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are tried before the remaining causes of action asserted in Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint.

“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, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).) “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, 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, 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, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 598.)

In general terms, this case is based on Martine Palmaro-Trousse sending money to Defendants in the United States for purposes of investing in U.S. real estate. Some or all of that money is alleged to be the inheritance money of Martine’s children, Plaintiffs Emmanuel and Lara Trousse. Plaintiffs inherited this money following the death of their father, Jean-Michel Trousse. Plaintiffs were children at the time of their father’s death and when Martine and Defendants made their agreement. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants mishandled, misrepresented, and/or misappropriated their inheritance funds. Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against Martine, alleging wrongdoing for her role in the arrangement.

The first motion to bifurcate, filed by Plaintiffs, came for hearing on November 3, 2022. This court denied that motion. (See 11-3-2022 Minute Order.) Then, on December 5, 2022, this court denied Cross-Defendant Martine Palmaro-Trousse’s motion to quash. (See 12/5/22 Minute Order.)

Cross-Defendant Martine Palmaro-Trousse now brings this second motion to bifurcate and seeks the same remedy Plaintiffs did: for the issues in Complaint to be tried separately from, and prior to, those of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

In support, Cross-Defendant argues that the Complaint and First Amended Cross-Complaint are “separate and independent lawsuits.” (Mtn. 7: 4-5.) She also notes that the five-year deadline, including the 6-month COVID extension, falls on or about August 28, 2023. In contrast, the deadline on the FACC does not fall until on or about June 30, 2025. [FN 1]

Given the recent service of Cross-Defendant, she argues that she “needs additional time to conduct discovery to prepare her defenses and prepare a motion for summary judgment/adjudication.” (Mtn. 7: 8-9.) These facts make it difficult to try the Cross-Complaint before the impending deadline on the Complaint. Relatedly, Cross-Defendant contends she will be unfairly prejudiced in that event without the “benefit of the years of preparation the parties to the complaint have had to ready themselves for trial.” (Mtn. 7: 21-22.)

Cross-Defendant has failed to present any new facts or circumstances that warrant a departure from this court’s prior ruling denying bifurcation. By and large, this court already considered Cross-Defendant’s arguments made here when ruling on that motion.

This court again rejects the notion that the FACC and Complaint are easily severable. As has been repeated, Martine’s testimony is, at the very least, highly relevant to the claims alleged in both the Complaint and FACC. And of course, it is in large part Cross-Defendant’s own avoidance of service that caused her current predicament. She cannot now shift the burden of that decision onto the other parties. Finally, given the overlap in evidence, it is possible for the parties to the FACC to streamline discovery and be ready for a trial at the time of the Complaint. It may, of course, require some diligence.

Last, the moving party will not suffer any undue prejudice if this trial commences by late August of this year. She is essentially aligned with her children (the Plaintiffs) in this case. Sufficient discovery and evidence exist for her to utilize in her defense. Moreover, she is the one who flatly refused to accept service for many years and made the decision to formally enter this case late in its proceedings. She essentially made this bed and must sleep in it.

FN 1 - It is noted that Cross-Defendant cites no legal authority whatsoever to support this legal conclusion, This Court is skeptical of such a bald claim. However, if assuming arguendo that this is true, that fact would not change this Court’s decision. These matters should be decided at the same time in front of the same jury. Period.