Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2017-00955138, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Cross-Complainant/Defendant Juan Sebastian Moran, DDS (“MORAN”) seeks an order bifurcating its First Amended  Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) to occur before the trial of the main action. Likewise, Cross-Complainants/Defendants Arthur Wu, D.D.S., Inc. dba Walnut Valley Dentistry and Arthur Wu (collectively “WU”) seeks an order bifurcating the 5th cause of action from its First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) to occur before the trial of the main action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) states: “[t]he 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 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 of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the court may order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby...”

Whether to order separate trials is within the trial court’s discretion. (Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.)

Plaintiff’s action against MORAN, WU, and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Orange County Eyecare Optometry through Jeffrey Dougal, O.D. (“OC EYECARE”) alleges that they entered into one or more Equipment Finance Agreements (“EFAs”) with Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff agreed to finance the purchase of specific equipment for the customer; that Defendants participated in a scheme with Defendant Nelson Lim (“LIM”) (who is in default and has not appeared in this action) wherein they gave their personal information to LIM; that there was no equipment being financed in the EFAs; and that Defendants’ scheme was intended to take cash from Plaintiff without its knowledge or consent in violation of the EFAs. Plaintiff alleges that MORAN, WU, and OC EYECARE are falsely claiming that LIM acted on his own or alleges that they had a secret side agreement with LIM wherein they would receive working capital loans from him without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Based thereon, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for, inter alia, fraud, constructive fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, concealment, breach of contract, and breach of guaranty.

MORAN, WU, and OC EYECARE each filed their own separate cross-complaints alleging, inter alia, that they are the victims of identity theft by LIM.

Although MORAN and WU contend that bifurcation of their cross-actions and the claims for identity theft would potentially save time and shorten the trial time because the claims are potentially a complete defense to the main action, here, as Plaintiff indicates in the Opposition, Defendant OC EYECARE which also filed a cross-complaint did not seek bifurcation of its cross-complaint. Bifurcating two of the three cross-complaints would not result in judicial economy. The issues of identity theft are also an issue in Plaintiff’s action and trying the claims of two of the defendants prior to the main action would result in duplication of efforts and overlapping evidence.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions requesting bifurcation MORAN and WU’s cross-complaint from the main action.

Moving Party is to give notice.