Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00970, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00970    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 10, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00970

CASE NAME: Graciela Munoz; Roberto Munoz v. Easton Dowe Jones, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Easton Dowe Jones, as an individual and as trustee of the Easton and Hana Jones Family Trust, and Hana Olivia Jones, as an individual and as trustee of the Easton and Hana Jones Family Trust

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Graciela Munoz and Roberto Munoz

TRIAL DATE: February 24, 2025

MOTION: (1) Motion to Bifurcate Equitable Issues

Tentative Rulings: (2) DISCUSS; moving parties to outline the expected duration of trial on the equitable issues, which witnesses may overlap both phases of the trial, and both sides to discuss whether Plaintiff’s tort claims would or would not be resolved even if the Court were to grant Defendants the claimed equitable easement.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs, Graciela Munoz and Roberto Munoz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Easton Dowe Jones, as an individual and trustee of the Easton and Hana Jones Family Trust; Hana Olivia Jones, as an individual and trustee of the Easton and Hana Jones Family Trust, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On September 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Trespass and Encroachment by Trespass; (2) Private Nuisance and Encroachment by Private Nuisance; and (3) Quiet Title.

The SAC is based on the allegations that Plaintiffs are the owners of the real property adjacent to each other, and that Plaintiffs believe that a few months prior to Defendants moving into their property, the prior owner erected a gate, an unpermitted ADU, and had planted a palm tree that encroaches on Plaintiffs’ property. (SAC, ¶¶ 9-12.) Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendants remodeled the unpermitted ADU without obtaining the proper permits, added a fence/gate around the unpermitted ADU, and added an additional gate that encroaches on Plaintiffs’ property. (SAC, ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs state that on November 1, 2022, they had a professional, licensed engineer perform a boundary survey to determine the boundaries of Plaintiffs’ property, which determined the gates, Unpermitted ADU, hedges, and a palm tree

encroach onto Plaintiffs’ Property. (SAC, ¶ 13.) More specifically, Plaintiffs claim the encroachment ranges between 2-3 feet across the entire Western boundary of Plaintiffs’ Property, about 2 feet encroachment in the front yard and a 3 feet encroachment in the backyard. (SAC, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges that on January 12, 2023, they contacted Defendants to inform them of the encroachments and asked them to remove the encroaching structures from Plaintiffs’ Property. (SAC, ¶ 15.) However, on January 24, 2023, Plaintiffs state the Defendants sent a threatening and intimidating letter to Plaintiffs falsely claiming that Defendants were the true owners of the structures and land located on the disputed area. (SAC, ¶ 16.)

On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging claims for: (1) Declaratory Relief; and (2) Quiet Title – Equitable Easement. The cross-complaint is based on Defendants’ allegations that to the extent that it is determined that any feature, structure or landscaping (either claimed by Plaintiffs as the Encroachments or otherwise) wrongfully encroaches onto Plaintiffs’ property, or any other property owned, possessed, or controlled by Plaintiffs, said encroachment was done wither before the Defendants property was acquired by them and/or innocently by them without notice that they were encroaching. (XC, ¶ 16.) Defendants further state that they are entitled to an equitable easement over the encroached property and/or a lot-line adjustment to adjust the boundaries of the parties’ respective interests in the properties to alleviate any alleged encroachment. (XC, ¶ 19.)

Trial is currently set for February 24, 2025; however, the parties have filed a stipulation to continue trial and the FSC on January 3, 2025. The Court will inquire at the hearing whether the granting of the bifurcation motion would impact the trial stipulation, i.e., whether the expert is needed for the equitable issues or not.

Defendants now move this Court for an order bifurcating or severing the equitable issues in the action from the legal issues and trying the equitable issues first as Defendants assert judicial economy and the interest of justice warrant it.

B. Procedural

On December 12, 2024, Defendants filed the Motion to Bifurcate. On December 30, 2024 Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief, which Defendants challenge as untimely but which the Court will consider on the merits. On January 2, 2024, Defendants filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Bifurcate

i. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides in pertinent part 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, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, 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.” Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) provides in

pertinent part that, “[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 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.”

The Court’s discretionary authority to sever claims and try them separately may also be employed to avoid undue prejudice to a party. (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp., v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 988.) Courts have inherent power to regulate the order of trial, and therefore can entertain a motion to bifurcate at any time—even during the trial itself. (McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 353.)

The discretion of the trial court to bifurcate claims and try them separately is broad and will not be disturbed on appeal, except for abuse. (National Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418; see Buran Equip. Co. v. H & C Investment Co. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-344 [commending the trial court for bifurcating the trial and ordering a specific issue be tried first, “since, if it had been correctly decided, trial would not have been required of any other issues.”].)

ii. Judicial Economy and Efficiency of Handling the Litigation

Defendants argue that the issue of whether an equitable easement should be granted for the Defendants’ block wall and back house which have existed for more than 25 years should be determined by the Court before any jury is empaneled. Defendants assert that the central issue in this case arising out of Plaintiffs’ quiet title actions in the SAC is whether the Court should grant an equitable easement to protect all encroachments (i.e., Defendants’ block wall, back house (and attendant patio), palm tree, and gates in the encroachment area (“Encroachments”). Defendants purchased their property in 2020 believing the alleged encroachments to be part of the property, but without having conducted a survey. Defendants state that the encroachments have existed for well over 25 years (the Block Wall) and 70 years (the Defendants’ Back House.)

Moreover, Defendants assert that they will suffer substantial financial loss should they be forced to remove the encroachments, whereas Plaintiffs would face no irreparable injury. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs acquired their property in 1997, and admittedly saw and lived harmoniously with the Block Wall and Back House for over 25 years. Defendants contend that per Plaintiffs’ submitted documents to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in 2007-2008 attesting to the boundary of the Plaintiffs’ Property, the alleged encroachments do not impact Plaintiffs use of access to their property. Defendants’ describe the encroachment as a 2.2-2.7 foot wide x 120 long strip of land along the common boundary that Plaintiffs have never used and have never desired to use until recently. Defendants opine that moving the Block Wall to the common boundary would result in the demolition of the Back House, costing $20,000 plus another $5,000 to $10,000 to reinstate the rear integrity of the Defendants’ property. Defendants also submit that the loss of the encroachments would also result in a significant loss to the Defendants’ property of at least $200,000 plus $100,000 in lost business value.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants oversimplify the central issues of the case. Plaintiffs spend a portion of their argument explaining why their quiet title action is a legal cause of action as the right to possession is at issue. Plaintiff concedes that the issue of possession is present in its quiet title cause of action. Irrespective of possession, a potential determination of an equitable

easement would resolve the issue of possession. Plaintiffs assert that even if the Court granted an equitable easement, Plaintiffs’ claims for trespass, nuisance, and damages remain unresolved and trying these claims in a separate phased would require the presentation of much of the same evidence, wasting judicial resources and duplicating efforts. The Court seeks oral argument form both sides as to whether the determination of an equitable easement would or would not be dispositive of Plaintiffs’ tort claims. The Court also seeks a discussion from Defendants as to the expected duration of each of the proposed two phases of the trial, how many witnesses would overlap both phases, and whether the expert’s availability to testify affects the parties’ stipulation to continue trial, i.e., if the expert is not available for the current trial date but his presence is not needed for the equitable phase, does the trial of propose phase 1 need to be postponed?

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is to be DISCUSSED