Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV45717, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45717    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 29

Galbreath v. L and R Auto Parks, Inc.
21STCV45717

Motion to Bifurcate filed by Plaintiff Raymond Galbreath.

Tentative

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Raymond Galbreath (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Defendants L and R Auto Parks, Inc., Juan Cruz, and Does 1 through 50 for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence causes of action stemming from an auto accident occurring on December 16, 2019.

On June 9, 2022, L and R Auto Parks, Inc. and Juan Cruz (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.

On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to bifurcate. On December 5, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to bifurcate.

Trial is set for February 6, 2025.

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

Plaintiff moves to bifurcate the issue of whether Plaintiff complied with Civil Code section 3333.4. (Salinas Decl., ¶ 4.)

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, rule 3.57(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 Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff Ray Galbreath’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.