Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 20AVCV00688, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20AVCV00688    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

This is a premises liability action. Plaintiff Lois Pelott (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on or about October 02, 2018, Plaintiff was walking inside Defendants Javier Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”); Greg, last name unknown (“Greg”); and PetSmart, Inc. (“PetSmart”)’s premises located at 39523 10th Street West, Palmdale, County of Los Angeles, State of California (the “Premises”) when she came into contact with material on the floor which caused her to fall, sustaining serious and enduring physical pain and injuries.

On September 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging three (3) causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision.

On May 14, 2021, PetSmart filed its Answer.

Gonzalez and Greg have not been served.

On August 30, 2022, PetSmart filed this Motion to Bifurcate.

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Opposition. The Court notes that due to the new holiday, Native American Day, on Friday, September 23, 2022, the Opposition has been filed eight court days prior to the hearing. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1300(d).) The Court, in its discretion, considers the late filed Opposition.

On September 22, 2022, PetSmart filed its Reply. The Court notes that due to the new holiday, Native American Day, on Friday, September 23, 2022, the Reply has been filed four court days prior to the hearing. “. . .[A]ll reply papers [shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party] at least five court days before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1300(d).) The Court, in its discretion, considers the late filed Reply.

-----

Legal Standard

Standard for Bifurcating – “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.” (Cal. Code¿Civ.¿Proc.,¿§ 1048(b).) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 598¿also provides in relevant 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.¿ 

(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §598.)

¿ 

In general, whether there will be a severance and separate trials on issues in a single action is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.¿(Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.¿(2000)¿78 Cal.App.4th 847,¿911-912, citing¿Downey Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.¿(1987)¿189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086.)¿In support of the court’s discretion, Evidence Code §¿320 provides that the court has the power to regulate the order of proof.¿  

-----

Discussion

Application – PetSmart argues that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proof because it had neither actual or constructive knowledge; PetSmart had a policy for regular inspection of the store for potential safety issues throughout business hours; and there is no evidence that an alleged dangerous condition existed on the date of the incident. Because of this, PetSmart believes that liability issues should be bifurcated. Specifically, PetSmart believes that arguments as to whether it was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property and whether its employee(s) was/were "unfit" for their job duties as it relates to Plaintiff's alleged incident are to be argued first.

PetSmart believes that failure to allow the liability issues to be tried first would cause the jury to become confused and lose both their objectivity and impartiality due to Plaintiff’s injuries and age. That is, issues related to damages rather than liability would garner sympathy from the jury. PetSmart also believes that bifurcation is best for the judicial economy as resolution of liability, on terms favorable to PetSmart, would save time and money as the need for experts and testimony related to damages would be extinguished.

Plaintiff believes that this Motion should be postponed until trial as the parties will have better estimates on timing and witness disclosures and availabilities. Plaintiff argues that her physical injuries will be used as evidence of liability by way of Plaintiff’s testimony, there is no proof that testimony from experts would create bias and prejudice, that the rug was placed by PetSmart’s manager which constitutes actual notice, and customers are permitted to be reasonably distracted under the holdings in Moise v. Fairfax Markets Inc. (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 798 and Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 601.

PetSmart presents that if liability were tried first, money and time would be saved as there would be no need to try the issue of Plaintiff’s damages, which would include a significant number of witnesses. PetSmart argues that Plaintiff’s argument that bifurcation should not be granted because Plaintiff must prove both liability and damages to prevail in this case is contrary to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b). Further, PetSmart argues that Plaintiff has not proven that bifurcation would inconvenience witnesses as bifurcation would allow a shorter trial.

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b), bifurcation motions such as this are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. (See Mellone v. Lewis (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 4, 7.)

The Court is not convinced that bifurcation is needed. The motion is premised on PetSmart’s assumption that it will prevail on liability (thus, no trial on damages); however, the motion fails to establish that such a result will occur (i.e., PetSmart will in fact prevail on liability). There is nothing in this case that would warrant a departure from the general rule that the plaintiff is entitled to present his or her entire case before the defense presents its case.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

-----

Conclusion