Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16339, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16339    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Toananton Manh Nguyen.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Carol Evette Lyles (“Plaintiff”) field her complaint against Defendants Federal Express Corp., Toananton Manh Nguyen, and Does 1 through 50, for Negligence and Negligence Per Se arising from an automobile accident occurring on May 26, 2020.

On November 13, 2023, Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Toananton Manh Nguyen (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to bifurcate. Plaintiff filed her opposition on February 7, 2024. Defendants filed their reply on February 15, 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, 3:2-4.)

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, 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 the judge’s 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

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

Moving parties to give notice.