Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV42155, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling
Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV42155 Hearing Date: November 18, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
19STCV42155 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
November
18, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: cross-defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial |
||
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and cross-complainant Karlen Galstyan
Motion to Bifurcate Trial
The court
considered the moving, joinder, opposition, and reply papers filed in
connection with this motion.
DISCUSSION
Cross-defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc. (“Canon”) moves the
court for an order bifurcating trial in this action to first determine whether
Karlen Galstyan (“Galstyan”) is entitled to certain declaratory relief that he
requests in his Cross-Complaint, i.e., a judicial declaration that he is a
victim of identity theft.
“[T]rial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof
in the interests of judicial economy.”¿ (Grappo v. Country Financial Corp. (1991)
235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.)¿ Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048,
“[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice . . . may
order a separate trial . . . of any separate issue or of any number of causes
of action or issues . . . .”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)¿ Similarly,
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that “[t]he court may, when the
convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of
handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . . . 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 finds that it is not in furtherance of convenience, the ends
of justice, or judicial economy to bifurcate this action in order to first set
for trial Galstyan’s request for declaratory relief relating to his identity
theft claim because (1) Canon has not shown that there will be no overlap of
issues, witnesses, and testimony during subsequent phases of trial after the
court rules on Galstyan’s declaratory relief claim, and (2) the court finds
that there is likely to be an overlap of issues, witnesses, and evidence since,
for example, if the court finds in favor of Galstyan on his claim for
declaratory relief on the ground that he is a victim of identity theft, a
second phase of trial will be required to determine Galstyan’s entitlement to
actual damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
598, 1048; Civ. Code, § 1798.93, subd. (c)(5) [a person who proves that they
are a victim of identity theft may recover, among other relief, actual damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs].)
The court further finds that Canon and the joining parties have not
presented adequate argument and evidence establishing that the resolution of
Galstyan’s request for declaratory relief regarding his identity theft claim will
(1) expedite trial on Galstyan’s remaining causes of action for declaratory
relief, contribution, and indemnity, or (2) expedite trial on their respective
complaints against Galstyan.
The court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Canon’s motion to
bifurcate. (Grappo, supra,
235 Cal.App.3d at p. 504; Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v.
Superior Court of Alameda County (2020) 9 Cal.5th 279, 317 [“California
decisions have also repeatedly held that when severable legal and equitable
causes of action or issues are present in a single proceeding, the trial court
generally has authority to determine in what order the matters should be heard
. . . .”]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048 [the court “may” make orders that the
trial of any issue shall precede the trial of another issue or order a separate
trial of any cause of action].)
ORDER
The court denies (1) cross-defendant
Canon Business Properties, Inc.’s motion to bifurcate, and (2) defendants Scott
R. Devore, Trustee of the Scott R. Devore Revocable Living Trust, dated
February 23, 2016, Don Devore, erroneously sued and served as co-trustee of the
Don and Bonita Devore Family Trust dated May 28, 2003, Bonita Devore, erroneously
sued and served as co-trustee of the Don and Bonita Devore Family Trust dated
May 28, 2003, and Paul Devore’s joinder to the motion to bifurcate.
The court orders cross-complainant
Karlen Galstyan to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court