Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV35531, Date: 2024-06-10 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: 20STCV35531    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Sylvia Ena

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Sylvia Ena (“Defendants”) move the court for an order bifurcating trial in this action, filed by plaintiff David Tsao (“Plaintiff”), to separate the issue of punitive damages from the issues of liability and damages.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion.

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.¿ Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.¿ Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.”¿¿(Civ. Code, §¿3295, subd. (d).)¿ “While the statute refers only to evidence of the defendant’s financial condition, in practice bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the amount of punitive damages is to be offered in the second phase, while the determination whether plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages (i.e., whether the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression) is decided in the first phase along with compensatory damages.”¿ (Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907, 919.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

The court finds that Defendants are entitled to an order bifurcating trial pursuant to Civil Code section 3295, and therefore grants Defendants’ motion and makes the orders set forth below.  (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)

ORDER

            The court grants defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Sylvia Ena’s motion to bifurcate punitive damages.

            The court orders that trial of this action will be bifurcated as follows: (1) the jury will first decide the issues of whether to impose liability for compensatory damages and, if so, the amount of compensatory damages, and whether defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Slyvia Ena are guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud, and (2) only after making findings in plaintiff David Tsao’s favor on all those issues, the jury will then decide the issue of whether to impose punitive damages against defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Sylvia Ena.

            The court orders defendants DTLA Real Estate, Inc., and Sylvia Ena to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  June 10, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court