Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: BC699489, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC699489    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff Candy Lopez (“Lopez”) filed this action against Defendants United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) and Ryan Quon (“Quon”).

On December 20, 2018, Quon filed a Cross-Complaint against Lopez and UPS. On February 28, 2022, Quon filed the operative Fifth Amended Cross-Complaint against

UPS, Lopez, Ruben Duran, Morgan Price (“Price”), Don Tefft, La Shawn Stanford (“Stanford”), Fausto Vargas, and Teamsters Local 396, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of employment contract, (2) discrimination based upon race in violation of Government Code         § 12940(a), (3) harassment based upon gender in violation of Government Code § 12940(j), (4) harassment based upon race in violation of Government Code § 12940(j), (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, (7) conspiring with and soliciting another to commit civil extortion, (8) aiding and abetting conspiracy and attempted extortion, (9) failure to prevent racial harassment under Government Code § 12940(k), (10) statutory indemnity Labor Code § 2802, and (11) aiding and abetting conversion. Quon seeks punitive damages as well as general and special damages.

UPS, Price, Don Tefft, and Stanford (collectively, the “UPS Cross-Defendants” and individually, a “UPS Cross-Defendant”) now move for an order bifurcating the punitive damages phase from the liability phase of trial, precluding Quon from introducing any evidence of the UPS Cross-Defendants’ net worth or financial condition during the liability phase, and precluding Quon and his counsel from making any claim, at any time, for a specific amount of exemplary damages. The motion is unopposed.   

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(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.” ((Ibid. .)

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 Quon may be entitled will not be tried unless and until Quon’s right to recover punitive damages is established. Similarly, evidence of the profits and financial condition of a UPS Cross-Defendant, including the UPS Cross-Defendant’s net worth, will not be admissible at trial unless it is established that the UPS Cross-Defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3294. (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)  

Lastly, Code of Civil Procedure section 3295, subdivision (e) provides that “[n]o claim for exemplary damages shall state an amount or amounts.” Accordingly, the Court precludes Quon and his counsel from claiming a specific amount of exemplary damages should the trial get to a punitive damages phase.

Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the UPS Cross-Defendants’ motion. The issue of the amount of punitive damages will not be tried and evidence of a UPS Cross-Defendant’s profit and financial condition will not be admitted unless and until Quon’s right to recover punitive damages against that UPS Cross-Defendant is established. In addition, Quon and his counsel may not claim a specific amount of exemplary damages should the trial get to a punitive damages phase.

            The UPS Cross-Defendants are to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  August 18, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court