Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV33516, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33516    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Heddar Sherazi and Melanie Sherazi (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed a “Complaint to Abate Nuisance and for Damages” in this action against Defendants George Yadegar; Hong Kook Kim; Wong Woo Pak; and Carlos Jimenez, individually and dba J B Advance Builders.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of real property known as 3320 Reynolds Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. (Compl., ¶ 1.) George Yadegar is the owner of real property known as 3322 N. Reynolds Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. (Compl., ¶ 2.) “Plaintiffs’ lot and the lot of Defendant Yadegar adjoin the north border of Plaintiffs’ lot (468) and south border of Defendant’s lot (467).” (Compl., ¶ 6.) “During the first half of 2019, Defendant Yadegar began excavation on lot 467 and the adjoining lot 466 (also owned by defendant Yadegar) with the goal of building two single family residences on the two lots.” (Compl., ¶ 9.) “Said excavations were performed by Defendant Pak as general contractor, Defendant Jimenez as excavator and Defendant Kim as supervising engineer, at the direction of Defendant Yadegar.” (Compl., ¶ 10.)

 Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s a result of Defendants’ negligence and other errors as alleged above, Plaintiffs’ lot was deprived of its natural support, and beginning on or about December 26, 2019 Plaintiffs’ earth and soil have subsided and slipped into the excavation on Defendant’s lots. The subsidence has affected Plaintiffs’ walkways, patio and gardens, and has rendered their land unsafe for use, particularly near the lot’s northern boundary.” (Compl., ¶ 12.)

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Joseph Yadegar in place of Doe 2.

On December 14, 2020, George Yadegar filed a Cross-Complaint against Wong Woo Pak, individually and dba Together Construction; Carlos Jimenez, individually and dba JB Advance Builders; Green Road Construction; Mack Jorjezian, and Vasak Vardanyan. On October 18, 2021, George Yadegar filed his operative First Amended Cross-Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief. 

On October 18, 2021, Carlos Jimenez filed a Cross-Complaint against Wong Woo Pak, individually and dba Together Construction, and George Yadegar, alleging causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On June 9, 2022, Joseph Yadegar filed a Cross-Complaint against Wong Woo Pak, individually and dba Together Construction; Carlos Jimenez, individually and dba JB Advance Builders; Green Road Construction; Mack Jorjezian, and Vasak Vardanyan, alleging causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief. 

Plaintiffs now move for an order granting a “(prior) separate trial of the issues of liability and apportionment of liability against tort feasors.” George Yadegar and Joseph Yadegar (jointly, the “Yadegars”) oppose.  

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b) provides: “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, 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.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order…that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case…” 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.)

Plaintiffs submit the declaration of their counsel in support of the instant motion, who states that “[u]pon review of Yadegars’ submission for the final status conference I became concerned that Yadegars’ defense would be to push all the liability onto Defendant Jimenez on the basis that Jimenez was a licensed contractor and therefore should be solely responsible…” (Tabone Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs argue that this position is contrary to the evidence and the law.

As set forth above, Plaintiffs move for a “(prior) separate trial of the issues of liability and apportionment of liability against tort feasors.” (Mot. at p. 1:23-24.) Plaintiffs argue that “[b]ifurcation and trial of liability separate from and prior to trial on the issue of damages will…prevent possible prejudice to Plaintiffs in the jury being confused by Yadegars’ constant attempts to lay blame off on Jimenez contrary to law.” (Mot. at p. 7:17-19.)

In the opposition, the Yadegars assert that “Plaintiffs’ motion fails to outline how any economy, efficiency, or the ends of justice would be met by a bifurcation. Indeed, bifurcation would in fact create unnecessary duplication, requiring the parties’ experts and witnesses to make multiple appearances to testify, nearly doubling the time to try this case.” (Opp’n at p. 2:16-19.) Plaintiffs did not file any reply in support of the motion and thus do not address this point. The Yadegars also state that “Plaintiffs’ counsel declares he filed the motion because he is concerned that the Yadegar Defendants will attempt to shift blame to Defendant Carlos Jimenez…This is confusing, as bifurcation has no effect on this.” (Opp’n at p. 3:8-10.) Indeed, although Plaintiffs assert that they are “concerned that Yadegars’ defense would be to push all the liability onto Defendant Jimenez,” (Tabone Decl., ¶ 8) it is unclear why this is a purported basis for the Court to bifurcate liability and damages issues, as Plaintiffs request.

As set forth above, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order…that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) It is unclear how the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted by bifurcation here.

Conclusion    

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

The Yadegars are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  November 8, 2023                         

________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court