Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2021-01225030, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

1)   Motion for Bifurcation

2)   Joinder

Defendants, City of Huntington Beach and John Romero’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial is DENIED.

The Court declines to rule on the objection to the Notice of Lodging in Support of Opposition on the grounds that it is not material to the disposition of this Motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides in pertinent part: “The 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, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, 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, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time.”

Section 1048, subdivision (b) provides: “The 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, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.”

“[T]rial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy.” (Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.) Separate trial of the liability issue is desirable “to avoid wasting court time in cases where the plaintiff loses on the liability issue, to promote settlements where the plaintiff wins on the liability issue, and to afford a more logical presentation of the evidence, thus simplifying the issues for the jury.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888, fn. 8.) “The court, however, over the objection of a party, cannot order the separate trial of an issue of liability when because of the nature of the case it is necessary to prove the plaintiff’s damages in order to establish that liability.” (Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–86.)

Defendants argue that liability should be bifurcated from damages because doing so will promote the interests of justice as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 598. Specifically, it is unlikely that the Court will have to try damages, as “…Defendants are not liable for this incident. The police officer’s report puts Mr. Gappezani at fault.” (Motion, 5:7.) The Motion does not attach a copy of this police report.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the motion must be denied because Defendant has provided no evidence with its motion that bifurcation will promote the interests of justice. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the investigating officer cannot provide opinions on issues such as “fault” for automobile accident cases. (Opposition, 6:27-7:2.) Further, police reports are not admissible as evidence in trials arising out of automobile accident cases pursuant to Vehicle Code section 20013. (Opposition, 7:2-9.) Moreover, there is no evidence that the police officer is qualified to testify to matters such as accident reconstruction or human factors. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff also argues that liability should not be bifurcated from damages because testimony on liability and damages overlaps for at least three witnesses: Plaintiff’s human factors expert, and Defendants’ human factors and accident reconstruction experts. (Opposition, 8:13-22.)

In reply, Defendants argue that testimony on liability and damages will not overlap. However, Defendants do not show why such testimony is not expected to overlap.

Plaintiff is correct that police reports are generally not admissible. Box v. California Date Growers Assn. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 266, 270 provides: “[i]ndeed, it is well established that traffic accident reports are not admissible in evidence.” Vehicle Code section 20013 provides: “[n]o such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident..” Therefore, Defendants’ argument that liability will be determined against Plaintiff based on the police report fails.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel Adriano Facchetti attests as follows in support of the Motion: “Expert witnesses will testify to issues relevant to both liability and damages. Plaintiff’s expert, Mark Burns, will testify as to how and why the accident occurred, which is relevant to liability/causation and damages. Likewise, defendants have designated two separate experts on human factors and accident reconstruction, John Brault and Jeffrey A. Suway. The testimonies of Mr. Burns, Mr. Brault, and Mr. Suway will all be relevant to liability/causation and damages. [¶] Plaintiff, defendant Garcia, and defendant Romero are all key liability witnesses. Garcia and Romero were two of the first people to interact with Plaintiff following the collision. To ask Plaintiff or Garcia to testify without expressing any emotion of referencing Plaintiff is nearly impossible. [¶] Given the nature of the case, the prospective jurors will need to be questioned during voir dire about ALL issues, including their feelings on important topics such a general damages, substantial damages against a public entity, and other similar issues.” (Facchetti Declaration (ROA 199), ¶¶ 21, 22, 24.)

Based on the Opposition and Facchetti Declaration, the Court finds that the issues of liability and damages overlap. Specifically, Plaintiff has shown that he was injured while retrieving ice from an ice chest with Defendant Garcia in the vicinity and due to the actions of Defendant Romero. Therefore, in order to determine to what extent Plaintiff was injured for purposes of damages, it will be necessary to discuss the causes of his injury, such as whether Defendant Garcia was looking or could have warned Plaintiff prior to the accident, or whether Defendant Romero should have driven by at the time of the accident and if so, whether the manner in which he did caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that liability overlaps with damages.  Accordingly, bifurcation is inappropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that bifurcation is not appropriate here because the issues of liability and damages are intertwined. Further, bifurcation will not promote judicial efficiency and economy since testimony of witnesses that bears on both liability and damages would need to be presented twice.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED

Plaintiff is to give notice.