Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: BC719217, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Doe”) alleges she visited the Parker Room on Friday, April 28, 2017, wherein she engaged in conversation with Defendant Martinez (“Martinez”), who was senior manager of the Parker Room—a business owned by Defendant San Carlos Enterprises, Inc. (“SCE”).

It is further alleged that Martinez forced himself onto Plaintiff and forcibly performed oral copulation on her. Plaintiff resisted and subsequently left the Parker Room to Uber home. Martinez allegedly approached her while she waited and again forced himself onto her. Martinez then followed Plaintiff into the Uber. The forced touching and unwanted advances continued in the car, until it arrived at Plaintiff’s home. At that point Plaintiff got out, and Martinez departed in the Uber.

Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint against SCE and Martinez for (1) sexual battery/rape, (2) battery, (3) assault, (4) violations of Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, and 52.1, (5) violation of the Gender Violence Statute–Civil Code Section 52.4, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligence, and (8) premises liability . It also includes a claim against SCE for (9) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Punitive Damages phase of trial is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the issue of whether Defendant Martinez was acting within the course and scope of his employment is DENIED.

“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.)

(1) Whether the alleged conduct of Defendant, SAM MARTINEZ (“Martinez”) in relation to the subject Incident was within the course and scope of his employment as a manager employed by SCE, so that this issue can be presented before the jury determines whether SCE is liable to Plaintiff in this action; and

(2) Whether Plaintiff, JANE DOE (“Plaintiff”) is entitled to recover punitive damages from SCE in this case under Code of Civil Procedure § 3294, so that this issue is not determined until after such time as the jury finds that SCE is liable to Plaintiff in this action.

Defendant argues bifurcation of the issue of whether Defendant Martinez’s conduct was within the course and scope of his employment “would potentially prevent the jury from rendering an unfair, emotionally driven finding of liability against SCE based on Plaintiff’s alleged sexual assault, and would force the jury to make a more objective analysis as to SCE’s lack of involvement in the Incident.” (Mtn. 4: 5-8.) Regarding punitive damages, Defendant contends bifurcation would prevent jury confusion over the differing standards of proof and would prevent the jury “from rendering an unfair, emotionally-driven finding of liability against SCE.” (Mtn. 4: 6.)

Both Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff Doe filed oppositions to the motion. As an initial matter, neither opposes Defendant’s request for bifurcation of the punitive damages phase of the trial. The court therefore finds bifurcation of the punitive damages portion of trial is warranted.

Both Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff Doe oppose bifurcation of the issue of whether Defendant Martinez’s conduct was within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant SCE. They contend that bifurcation of this issue would cause significant overlap of evidence. The court agrees with that position. There is substantial overlap between the evidence and witnesses underlying the issues to be tried in the proposed separate trial phases. By all accounts, bifurcation of this issue will result in significant duplication of necessary testimony over two separate trials. This does not promote judicial efficiency or economy.

Alternatively, there is no adequate showing of undue prejudice to Defendant if these issues are tried together. Notably, Plaintiff has alleged a separate cause of action against Defendant SCE for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. Thus, as the opposing parties correctly note, even under a bifurcated trial, the jury will hear evidence of the alleged sexual assault.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Punitive Damages phase of trial is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the issue of whether Defendant Martinez was acting within the course and scope of his employment is DENIED.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@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.