Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV01544, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01544    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Mike Yessian and Mandi Martinez (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 13, 2020 against Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (“Garfield Beach CVS”). On August 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Garfield Beach CVS, LLC dba CVS Pharmacy Store and Deborah Padilla (“Padilla”). The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Unruh Act; (2) defamation per se; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief indicates that they seek punitive damages. (SAC, p. 8:26.)  

Garfield Beach CVS and Padilla (jointly, “Defendants”) now move for an order bifurcating the trial into two phases and precluding the presentation of evidence concerning Defendants’ financial condition, including but not limited to, income and profits, until there has been a finding, if any, that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive or exemplary damages. 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. The issue of the amount of punitive damages to which Plaintiffs may be entitled will not be tried unless and until Plaintiffs’ right to recover punitive damages is established. Similarly, evidence of the profits and financial condition of Garfield Beach CVS and/or Padilla, including the net worth of either defendant, will not be admissible at trial unless it is established that the defendant 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 Defendants’ motion. The issue of the amount of punitive damages will not be tried and evidence of Garfield Beach CVS and/or Padilla’s profit and financial condition will not be admitted unless and until Plaintiffs’ right to recover punitive damages against that defendant is established.

            Defendants are to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  September 30, 2022                       ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court