Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV07180, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)
Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Case Number: 19STCV07180 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The motion to sever is denied.
The motion to trifurcate is denied without prejudice.
Background
This action arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred when Plaintiffs Edward Hurtado and Jennifer Godoy were the passengers of Defendant Liliana Castillo's vehicle when they were involved in a vehicle collision. Defendant Castillo was apparently transporting passengers as an “independent contractor utilizing the Uber App” (Mot. at 4:22) at the time of the collision.
On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for negligence against Defendants Number One Liftgate and Trailer Repair Corp., Liliana Castillo, and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”).
On September 30, 2021, Defendant Castillo was dismissed without prejudice.
On October 14, 2021, Mercury Insurance intervened as Defendant for Number One Liftgate and Trailer Repair Corp. Number One Liftgate and Trailer Repair Corp was dismissed with prejudice on September 27, 2022.
On October 15, 2021, Mercury Insurance on behalf of Number One Liftgate and Trailer Repair Corp filed a cross-complaint in intervention against Castillo and Uber.
On April 19, 2023, an Order of Dismissal was filed dismissing the claims by Plaintiffs against Uber.
Legal Standard
“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 … or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048 (b).) The court has general discretion to order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)
Discussion
Uber moves to sever Cross-Defendant Mercury’s cross-complaint against them or in the alternative, trifurcate the action into three parts as follows: (1) decide the threshold issues of Plaintiff’s Complaint, including liability of Mercury’s insured and Plaintiff’s damages, if any; (2) to determine Cross-Defendant Lilliana Castillo’s apportionment of fault, if any; and (3) only in the event Cross-Defendant Lilliana Castillo’s apportioned share of damages exceeds $1 million, determine Uber’s alleged vicarious liability and responsibility for any award entered against Liliana Castillo.
Uber argues the Cross-Complaint is not at issue and should be severed because it is not ripe for trial as any liability of Uber under the Cross-Complaint “is entirely contingent upon a finding that it is vicariously liable for Liliana Castillo’s negligence, if any.” (Motion, 8:19-20.) In the alternative, Uber argues trifurcation would avoid confusing the jury as Uber is no longer a party to the complaint and will not appear on the verdict form, avoid undue prejudice as to defense as it may sway the jury into thinking there are “deep pockets” available, and will aid in judicial economy by streamlining the trial of Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Motion, 9:3-4, 17, 21; 10:8-9.)
Defendant Mercury opposes Uber’s motion. Mercury argues that trifurcation would increase trial length, cause inconvenience to witnesses, increase cost of expert witness testimony, and involve the presenting of duplicative evidence. (Opposition, 4:19-22.) Further, the witnesses and experts required for either a severed trial or the trifurcated trial would be the same, and would be repeating their testimony. (Opposition, 4:22-23.)
In reply, Uber argues that the sole issue related to Uber is if it is vicariously liable for the actions of Lilliana Castillo, and as such, none of the evidence relating to this vicarious liability is necessary to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (Reply, 2-3:25, 1-2.) Further, this issue of vicarious liability is moot if Mercury achieves a defense verdict, or if Plaintiff’s verdict is for less than $1,000,000.00. (Reply, 3:8-9.)
The Court finds the cross-complaint in this action is based on a similar set of facts that should be tried at the same time and not severed from Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Mercury. This is based on the Mercury’s Cross-Complaint first cause of action is for total indemnity against Cross-Defendants Lilliana Castillo and Uber. As such, it would be more efficient and convenient to hear the two matters at the same time, not in separate trials. As such, Cross-Defendant Uber’s motion to sever is DENIED.
Uber’s motion for trifurcation is DENIED without prejudice.
In cases assigned to the Personal Injury Hub, the case will be tried by a different judge than the one assigned to rule on this motion. The Court finds that because of the close relationship between bifurcation motions (or in this case, a trifurcation motion) and trial management, it is appropriate in this matter for the trial judge to determine whether trifurcation is warranted.
A motion to bifurcate (or trifurcate) is not a motion in limine. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.57(c).) Nonetheless, as it relates to management of the trial proceedings, a motion to bifurcate (or trifurcate) has certain attributes that are similar to motions in limine. And, in cases assigned to the Personal Injury Hub, the trial judge (not the judge in the Personal Injury Hub) rules on all motions in limine. While this trifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar.¿ The request for trifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its role in managing the trial proceedings.¿
Accordingly, the Court rules that Uber may submit a motion for bifurcation (or trifurcation) at the time that motions in limine are filed. Any other party may submit an opposition when oppositions to motions in limine are filed. The Court orders that the trifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case.¿ If there is any issue with regard to Rule of Court 3.57, Uber or any other party may direct the trial court to this order (which of course does not impose any obligation on the trial judge with regard to ruling on the motion).
Conclusion
Moving party to give notice.