Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV01086, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01086 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendant Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Tentative
The motion is
denied without prejudice.
Background
This is a personal injury case stemming from an injury
suffered by John David Cadena (“Plaintiff”) while attending his school, the
Alfonso B. Perez Transition Center (“Perez School”). Plaintiff filed his
initial Complaint on January 11, 2022, alleging two causes of action against
the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD” or “Defendant”): (1) premises
liability and (2) violation of Government Code Section 835: liability for
injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property.
On February 1, 2024,
Defendant filed this motion to bifurcate. Plaintiff filed his
opposition on February 13, 2024. Defendants filed its reply on February 20,
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
Defendant moves to
bifurcate this matter and to try liability and damages separately. (Motion, 3:22-25.)
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 Defendant 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, 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
Based
on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.