Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 18STCV03581, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV03581    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiff Christina Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 2, 2018 against a number of Defendants, including, inter alia, Jesse E. French, Esq., Kyle Tracy Esq., and Shane V. Hapuarachy, Esq.

Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on August 19, 2020. The TAC alleges causes of action for (1) legal malpractice and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. In the TAC, Plaintiff alleges that she seeks, inter alia, punitive damages. (TAC, p. 33:13.)

Jesse French, Kyle Tracy, and Shane Hapuarachy (collectively, the “Moving Parties”) now move for an order (1) “[p]recluding plaintiff, her counsel and all witnesses from offering any evidence or making any statements in the presence of the jury concerning Jesse French, Kyle Tracy and Shane Hapuarachy’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages and finds that Jesse French, Kyle Tracy and Shane Hapuarachy are guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d),” (2) “[t]o have all court documents which go before the trier of fact scrutinized and corrected so as to adhere to the previous instruction,” and (3) “[t]o preclude plaintiff or her counsel from referring to the fact that this Motion has been filed or granted.” The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b) provides: “[t]he 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, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” ((Id., § 1048, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure sections 597 and 598 allow a court to order that the trial of any issue or part thereof proceed before the trial of any other issue to promote the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation. Additionally, Evidence Code section 320 provides that trial courts have discretion to regulate the order of proof. “[T]rial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy.” ((Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.) The objective of bifurcation is “avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.” ((Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.)

Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d) provides that “[t]he court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.” Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d) goes on to state that “[e]vidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” This section “requires a court, upon application of any defendant, to bifurcate a trial so that the trier of fact is not presented with evidence of the defendant’s wealth and profits until after the issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression, or fraud have been resolved against the defendant.” ((Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777-778.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the punitive damages phase of trial must be bifurcated from the rest of trial. Evidence of the profits and financial condition of each of the Moving Parties will not be admissible at trial “until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that [such moving party] is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.” (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)

As set forth above, the Moving Parties also request an order “[t]o have all court documents which go before the trier of fact scrutinized and corrected so as to adhere to the previous instruction.” (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:8-9.) In addition, the Moving Parties seek an order “[t]o preclude plaintiff or her counsel from referring to the fact that this Motion has been filed or granted.” (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:10-11.) The Moving Parties do not appear to cite any legal authority to support such requests. Accordingly, the Court denies these requests.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Moving Parties’ motion in part. The issue of the amount of punitive damages will not be tried and evidence of the Moving Parties’ profits and financial condition will not be admitted unless and until the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that the Moving Parties are guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3294.

The Moving Parties’ motion is otherwise denied, as set forth above.

///

///

///

///

            The Moving Parties are to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 18, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court