Dana Calvin v. Molina Healthcare Inc., et al.

       

MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

  

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Molina Healthcare, Inc., Molina Health, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California, Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Dana Calvin

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Dana Calvin brings this action against Defendants Molina Healthcare, Inc., Molina Health, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California, Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc. (the “Molina Defendants”).  Plaintiff worked for the Molina Defendants as a Leave of Absence Supervisor.  After experiencing a traumatic family event that necessitated a medical leave of absence, Plaintiff alleges Defendants terminated her employment. 

Defendants now move bifurcate Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages from liability and compensatory damages.  Plaintiff opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED on the issue of punitive damages.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Bifurcate Trial

Analysis

The Court has the discretion to order bifurcation in furtherance of convenience, the ends of justice, the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation, or to avoid prejudice.  CCP §§ 598, 1048(b).  

CCP § 598:

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. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. . . .

CCP § 1048(b) provides:

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.

Defendants move to bifurcate “case-dispositive issues (i.e., liability) from damages and Defendants’ financial condition at trial.” (Mtn. 7: 19-22.)  This motion is made “to eliminate waste of resources and time, and to prevent undue prejudice to Defendants and confusion of the jury.”  (Id.)  Specifically, Defendants ask the court to bifurcate Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages from liability and compensatory damages.

In opposition, counsel for Plaintiff states that he had a telephonic conversation with counsel for Defendants after the motion was filed.  The parties came to the following agreement:

During this telephone discussion I indicated that it would not make sense to have a trial bifurcated on liability and damages – as the plaintiff would be required to testify as to liability and then, if liability was found, have to go back over her entire testimony to explain how each adverse employment action impacted her emotionally (a massive waste of judicial resources). In response, Mr. Thompson affirmed that defendants would amend their request to simply seek a bifurcation of punitive damages (so there would be phase I on liability and compensatory damages and a phase II on punitive damages)…As such, since defendants are only seeking a bifurcation of trial on the issue of punitive damages, plaintiff does not oppose that relief.

(Henderson Decl. ¶ 2.)(Emphasis added.)

Defendants have not filed a reply brief, and thus, appear to agree with this version of the parties’ discussions.  The court finds good cause for bifurcating the issue of punitive damages.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED on the issue of punitive damages.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 27, 2022 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

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.