Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV11027, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11027    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 39

Luis Venegas, et al. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, et al.

Case No. 21STCV11027

Order #1 of 2

Motion to Bifurcate

Plaintiffs filed this employment discrimination and sexual harassment case against Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“BFI”) and the supervisor at issue, Peter Pouwels.  Defendants move to bifurcate this case to order separate trials for each plaintiff.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “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[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 598.)  Judicial economy would not be served by having separate trials concerning sexual harassment by the same supervisor.  Defendants argue that there is misjoinder by all ten plaintiffs filing a single action.  That is not the case when the plaintiffs all allege that they were sexually harassed by the same supervisor, Peter Pouwels.  Defendants also argue that a joint trial would involve irrelevant and prejudicial “me, too” evidence.  This is not the case when the “me, too” evidence involves the same supervisor.  Finally, Defendants’ counsel argues that a joint trial would involve at least 50 witnesses and over 200 hours of testimony, rendering the trial unmanageable.  If that is the case, the Court will transfer this case to a long cause courtroom at the appropriate time.  Separate trials would take even longer, given the time it would take to select juries and the repetitious testimony. 

The Court has considered Defendants’ remaining arguments and finds none to be persuasive.  Therefore, Defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial is denied.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. 

Order #2 of 2

Order Staying Case

            Following the case management conference, the Court designated this case as a long cause case, given the number of Plaintiffs and claims, which will require more than 100 hours of testimony at trial.  The Court ordered the parties to prepare long cause trial binders upon the close of expert discovery.

            The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be stayed, pending preparation of long cause trial binders and assignment to a long cause courtroom.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 25, 2023.)  No party filed an opposition to this Order to Show Cause.  Moreover, the Court finds good cause to stay this case, pending preparation of the long cause trial binders and assignment to a long cause courtroom.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         This case shall be stayed for all purposes, pending preparation of the long cause trial binders and assignment to a long cause courtroom.

            2.         This stay shall be automatically lifted once Department One issues an order transferring this case to a long cause trial courtroom.

            3.         Per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, the time between November 16, 2023, and the time this case is transferred to a long cause trial courtroom is excluded from the time within which this action must be brought to trial, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.

            4.         This stay shall not preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from filing a notice of settlement. 

            5.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.