Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV42396 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Sever Cross-Complaint from the Main Action filed by Cross-Defendant ABC Unified School District is DENIED.

On November 4, 2020, Plaintiffs Nathaniel Lopez and Daniel Kim initiated this action against Defendant City of Cerritos (“City”), asserting the following causes of action: (1) negligent infliction of personal injuries; and (2) dangerous condition of public property.^{^[1]}

On July 13, 2021, City filed a cross-complaint against cross-defendants ABC Unified School District, asserting the following causes of action: (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) breach of contract.^{^[2]}

On May 17, 2022, ABC Unified School District (“ABC”) filed the instant motion to sever the cross-complaint from the main action and should be tried separately.

Bifurcation is the procedure whereby the court may order separate trials of issues of parties joined in a single action. The objective of bifurcation is to avoid wasting time and money on the trial of damages issues if the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff. Also, the procedure is not limited to separate trials of liability and damages; nor is it limited to dividing a case into only two parts. A party seeking bifurcation should request such relief as soon as the need becomes apparent. Delay may be a factor affecting the court’s exercise of discretion. Generally, the court has the inherent power to regulate the order of trial and, therefore, can entertain a motion to bifurcate at any time, even during the trial. However, where bifurcation is sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 598 (e.g., to obtain bifurcation of liability issue), the order must be made no later than 30 days before trial.

“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 [. . .] 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 [. . .]¿ The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. [. . .]”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 598, portions omitted.)

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).)

Here, ABC seeks to sever the cross-complaint from the underlying action so that it can be tried separately. In support of its motion, ABC argues that the contractual issue raised in the cross-complaint is separate and distinct from the premises liability issue raised in the underlying action. (Motion at pg. 4.) ABC reasons that the indemnity agreement within the use permit has no bearing on Plaintiffs’ claim and there is a question of whether the use permit is enforceable. (Motion at pp. 4, 5.) Thus, ABC asserts that severing the cross-complaint would promote judicial economy because it is unnecessary for a jury to resolve the contractual issue. (Motion at pg. 5.)

In opposition, City argues that severance is not appropriate because ABC is an indispensable party to the underlying action, even though it has not been added as a named defendant, based on ABC’s regular use of the park and determination that it would be obligated to defend City if the use permit is enforceable. (Opposition at pp. 9-12.) Additionally, City asserts that evidence suggests that the students may have caused the alleged incident, and ABC had an obligation to supervise those students because it was a school sponsored baseball game. (Opposition at pp. 12-13.) Furthermore, City asserts that the proposed request would result in undue prejudice and a lack of judicial economy because the issues of liability allocation and the relationship amongst the parties and their duties would need to be resolved for each trial, resulting in duplications and redundancies. (Opposition at pp. 13-14.)

In reply, ABC contends that it is not an indispensable party because it has not been involved in discovery for the underlying action, and its actions prior to the alleged incident are only tangentially related to Plaintiffs’ claim. (Reply at pp. 3-5.) ABC maintains that the issues raised in the underlying action and the cross-complaint are separate and distinct, and City would not suffer any prejudice if the cross-complaint is severed from the main action. (Reply at pg. 6.)

Upon consideration of the arguments presented, the Court finds that bifurcating trial is not warranted in this instance. (Code of Civil Procedure §1048(b).) In this action, there is a question of the apportionment of liability. As City notes, ABC has regularly used City’s facility through the execution of a use permit, and the use permit includes an indemnification provision. (Opposition, Exh. A at pp. 42, 53-54.) While ABC contests the validity of the use permit, this issue has yet to be determined. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that ABC’s students may have been responsible for causing the incident. (Opposition, Exh. D at pp. 30-31.) Even though ABC brushes off these issues, it stands that the question of liability for Plaintiffs’ injuries remains at issue. Thus, the Court is not convinced that splitting trial into two phases would actually promote judicial economy. If anything, it would result in a larger expenditure of judicial resources because it would unnecessarily extend trial. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888 [“duplication of effort is the very opposite of the purpose of bifurcated trials.”].)

In terms of prejudice, the Court is not persuaded by ABC’s argument that the jury would be confused by having to resolve an admittedly non-complex contractual issue. Additionally, any confusion or prejudice can be avoided with efficient trial management and clear jury instructions. As a result, ABC would not be prejudiced. (Omaha Indem. Co. v. Superior Court (Greinke) (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1270–1271.)

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendant ABC Unified School District’s Motion to Sever Cross-Complaint from the Main Action is DENIED

[1] On November 7, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed the first cause of action against City.

[2] On November 4, 2022, City filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint adding Larry Natividad as a named cross-defendant.