Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV18978, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18978    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC.

Tentative

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff Craig Koenekoop (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, James Thompson, and DOES 1 to 10 for the causes of action of Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence.

On January 3, 2024, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC, (“Moving Defendants”) filed their motion to bifurcate. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 4, 2024. Defendant James Thopson filed his opposition on January 5, 2024. Moving Defendants filed their reply on January 11, 2024.

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 bifurcate this matter into two parts: (1) a trial to determine the liability of Defendant Thompson and Plaintiff’s damages, and (2) a trial to determine if Uber is vicariously liable for Defendant Thompson. (Motion, 2:2-6.)

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 and trial management, it is appropriate in this matter for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted.

A motion to bifurcate is not a motion in limine. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule3.57(c).) Nonetheless, as it relates to management of the trial proceedings, a motion to bifurcate

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 bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation 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 Moving Defendants may submit a motion for bifurcation 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 bifurcation 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, Moving Defendants 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

Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendants motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.