Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 18STCV06930, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV06930    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On December 3, 2018, Plaintiffs Alleeance Service Group, Inc. dba OK Bail Bonds (“Alleeance”) and Sang Won Lee (“Lee”) filed this action against Defendants John Suh aka John D. Suh aka John Doo Suh and Jae In Suh. On November 14, 2019, Alleeance and Lee filed the operative Third Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract,

(2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) fraud, (4) conversion, (5) accounting, (6) trade name infringement, and (7) unfair business competition.

On January 8, 2021, John Suh and Jae In Suh (jointly, the “Suh Parties”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Alleeance and Lee, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of oral contract, (3) fraud, (4) wrongful termination, (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (6) failure to pay wages when due, (7) failure to pay overtime wages, (8) common count-for account stated, and (9) common count-for money had and received.

On January 30, 2025, Alleeance Service Group, Inc. and Lee (jointly, the “Moving Parties”) filed a “Motion to Sever the Employment Issue from Defendants’ Wage and Wrongful Termination Claims and Bifurcate This Action.” The Suh Parties oppose. 

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.) 

In the motion, the Moving Parties assert that “the Court should sever the employment issue and bifurcate this action because it will promote economy, efficiency, and justice.” (Mot. at p. 3:20-21.) As a threshold matter, the Moving Parties do not clearly specify what the term “employment issue” refers to. As discussed below the “employment issue” appears to pertain to whether the Suh Parties “were employees” (but it is not clear of whom).

The Moving Parties argue that “[t]he Defendants’ wage and wrongful termination claims constitute a significant portion of this action. To illustrate how significant, over a third of the questions on the Special Verdict Form, 23 out of 62 questions to be exact, cover these claims. However, every single one of the claims is dependent on the jury first finding that the Defendants were employees. Therefore, if the jury does not so find, then all the time and resources spent arguing the claims, as well as examining witnesses, will have been wasted. On the other hand, if the employment issue is severed and the jury finds that the Defendants were not employees, it will save both the Court and the parties a significant amount of time and resources, while also promoting convenience of the witnesses. And if the jury finds that the Defendants were employees, it will simplify both phases and make them more focused, promoting a more efficient organization of evidence and more manageable deliberations.” (Mot. at p. 3:22-4:4.) As an initial matter, it is unclear what specific “wage and wrongful termination claims” the Moving Parties are referring to. It is unclear if the Moving Parties are referring to specific causes of action in the Suh Parties Cross-Complaint, and if so, what causes of action. In addition, the Moving Parties do not cite to any legal authority showing that these unspecified “claims” are “dependent on the jury first finding that the Defendants were employees.” (Mot. at p. 3:25.)

The Court agrees with the Suh Parties that “the request as to what is to be bifurcated is vague…” (Opp’n at p. 6:11-12.) As noted by the Suh Parties, the request does not appear to take into account “all of the other issues in the case including, without limitation, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ Complaint…” (Opp’n at p. 6:14-15.) The Moving Parties did not file any reply in support of the motion and thus do not respond to this point.

Further, as noted by the Suh Parties, the motion is procedurally inadequate. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112, subdivision (a), “[u]nless otherwise provided by the rules in this division, the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) The motion itself; and (3) A memorandum in support of the motion or demurrer.” Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subdivision (a), “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” As the Suh Parties note, the instant motion does not contain any notice of motion.

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that the Moving Parties have demonstrated good cause to “sever the employment issue from Defendants’ wage and wrongful termination claims and bifurcate this action.” (Mot. at p. 2:2-3.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Moving Parties’ motion is denied.

The Suh Parties are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  March 4, 2025                               

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court