THE FSC WILL BE AT 10 NOT 2 P.M. TENTATIVE BELOW

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

KRISTINE WEST, Plaintiff, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	19STCV31443
	Hearing Date:	May 11, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY FROM THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Background

Plaintiff Kristine West (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action on September 4, 2019 against Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) and Jorge Ochoa. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to accommodate disability in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (7) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, punitive damages in connection with the action. (Compl., p. 28:9-10.)

Greyhound now moves for an order precluding evidence of its profits or financial condition until after the jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding actual damages and finding Greyhound guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3294. No opposition to the motion was filed.

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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 Greyhound will not be admissible at trial “until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for [P]laintiff awarding actual damages and finds that [Greyhound] is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with [Civil Code] Section 3294.” (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Greyhound’s motion. The issue of the amount of punitive damages will not be tried and evidence of Greyhound’s 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 Greyhound is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code Section 3294.

Greyhound is to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: May 11, 2023 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court