Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV19067, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV19067, Date: 2023-10-16 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: 20STCV19067 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendants State of California acting by and through the California Highway Patrol and Alfredo Gutierrez.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Alvin Mount and Nella Mount (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint on May 19, 2020 against the California Highway Patrol, Alfredo Gutierrez, the State of California and Does 1 to 100 for two causes of action: (1) Wrongful Death, and (2) Negligence, stemming from an accident on October 27, 2019.

On February 13, 2024, Defendants State of California acting by and through the California Highway Patrol and Alfredo Gutierrez (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to bifurcate. No opposition has been filed. On February 28, 2024, the Court on its own motion, continued this hearing to April 10, 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

Defendants move to bifurcate this matter into two parts as to liability and damages. (Motion, 3:21-22.)

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 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, 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

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.