Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV12398, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12398    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiffs Salvador Mota and Priscilla Marie Mota aka Priscilla Marie Rubio (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on April 12, 2022.

Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 8, 2023 against Defendants Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, Toan Vo, Isaac Hernandez, Daniel Gardea, and SP Plus Corporation. The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) assault, (4) battery, (5) false imprisonment, (6) violation of federal civil rights, (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (8) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and (9) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.

Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC (“Los Angeles Dodgers”) now moves for an order (1) precluding plaintiffs, their counsel and all witnesses from offering any evidence or making any statements in the presence of the jury concerning Los Angeles Dodgers LLC’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages and finds that Defendants, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, Toan Vo, Isaac Hernandez and Danial Gardea are guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d); (2) to have all court documents which go before the trier of fact scrutinized and corrected so as to adhere to the previous instruction; and (3) to preclude plaintiff or their counsel from referring to the fact that this Motion has been filed or granted. The motion is unopposed.  

Discussion

As discussed, Los Angeles Dodgers requests, inter alia, that the Court enter an order “precluding plaintiffs, their counsel and all witnesses from offering any evidence or making any statements in the presence of the jury concerning Los Angeles Dodgers LLC’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages and finds that Defendants, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, Toan Vo, Isaac Hernandez and Danial Gardea are guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d).” (Mot. at pp. 1:26-2:4.)

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

Lastly, Los Angeles Dodgers also seeks an order that Plaintiffs be precluded “from referring to the fact that this Motion has been filed or granted.” (Mot. at p. 2:7-8.) The Court grants this request.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Los Angeles Dodgers’ motion. The issue of the amount of punitive damages will not be tried and evidence of Los Angeles Dodgers’ profits and financial condition will not be admitted unless and until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that Los Angeles Dodgers is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3294. The Court further orders that court documents which go before the trier of fact shall be scrutinized and corrected so as to adhere to the previous instruction. During the trial, Plaintiffs may not refer to the fact that this Motion has been filed or granted.

            Los Angeles Dodgers is to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  January 16, 2025                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court