Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28372, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28372 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial
Tentative
The motion is
denied without prejudice.
Background
On August 2,
2021, Plaintiff Gary Gstohl (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant June Roberts, alleging
causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and premises liability,
arising out of a dog bite that occurred on March 22, 2021, when Plaintiff was
(he alleges) on Defendant’s property to clean the pool. Defendant
June Roberts (“Defendant”) filed her answer on November 16, 2021.
On December 22, 2023, Defendant June Roberts, by and through her
Guardian Ad Litem, James Apted (“Defendant”), filed this motion to bifurcate.
Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 8, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on
January 12, 2024. This matter was initially set for hearing on January 22, 2024,
and was continued following the notice of the death of Plaintiff filed on
January 16, 2024.
On March 12, 2024, the Court issued an order permitting the
substitution of Linda Moye and Earl Gstohl as successors-in-interest of Plaintiff. On March 19, 2024, Linda Moye and Earl Gstohl
filed a First Amended Complaint naming themselves as Plaintiffs (as successors
in interest).
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
Defendant moves to bifurcate this matter and
have trial divided into separate phases for liability and damages. (Motion, 4:7-9.)
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 is similar. The
request for bifurcation here is be one for which the trial judge should make a
discretionary determination based on its role in managing the trial
proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion
without prejudice and rules that Defendant may renew the 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, Defendant 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
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to
bifurcate without prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.