Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV27069, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27069    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Amir Rad, individually and as trustee of the Amir H. Rad Trust dated March 10, 2018

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Siamak Rezvani and SAP Construction Enterprises, Inc.

Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Issue of Licensure

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court rules on defendant Amir Rad, individually and as trustee of the Amir H. Rad Trust dated March 10, 2018’s evidentiary objections, filed on April 5, 2024, as follows:

            Objection No. 1 is sustained.

            Objections No. 2-4 are overruled.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Amir Rad, individually and as trustee of the Amir H. Rad Trust dated March 10, 2018 (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order bifurcating trial in this action and, specifically, requests an order that the issue of whether plaintiffs Siamak Rezvani and SAP Construction Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) held a valid contractor’s license be tried prior to other issues.  Defendant contends that bifurcation is appropriate because, if Plaintiffs are determined to be unlicensed contractors, all of their claims fail as a matter of law.

“[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 and efficiency to bifurcate the trial in this action to first determine Plaintiffs’ licensure.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, subd. (b).)  Plaintiffs have presented argument showing that, if the court finds that Plaintiffs were properly licensed and therefore that their claims could proceed to the second phase of trial, the parties may call the same witnesses to testify, including Plaintiffs, their employees, and their subcontractors and/or suppliers.  (Opp., p. 3:21-26.)  Thus, bifurcating trial into two phases could lengthen trial, which would not promote judicial efficiency and economy. 

The court finds that bifurcating trial in the manner requested by Defendant will not serve the ends of justice, convenience, or judicial economy and efficiency.  The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, subd. (b).)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Amir Rad, individually and as trustee of the Amir H. Rad Trust dated March 10, 2018’s motion to bifurcate trial on the issue of licensure.

            The court orders plaintiffs and cross-defendants Siamak Rezvani and SAP Construction Enterprises, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 15, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court