Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV20662, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20662    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 29, 2023          TRIAL DATE: November 14, 2023

CASE:                         Jerrold Robinson, by and through his successors in interest Latrice Robinson, et al. v. Royal Vista Care Center, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV20662           

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Royal Vista Care Center, LLC, and AHMC Healthcare, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Latrice Robinson, individually and as successor-in-interest to Jerrold Robinson, Mikayla Robinson, and Jerrold Robinson Jr.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a wrongful death and elder abuse action filed on June 2, 2021. Plaintiffs allege that decedent Jerrold Robinson was admitted to Royal Vista Care Center for short-term custodial care while recovering from back surgery. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants allowed the decedent to contract COVID-19 during his stay, which ultimately resulted in his death.

            Defendants move to bifurcate the issues of liability and punitive damages and preclude admission of evidence of Defendants’ financial condition until the second phase of trial.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED. Trial on the issue of Defendants’ liability will be conducted first, followed by the issue of punitive damages. Evidence of Defendants’ financial condition may not be introduced until the second phase of trial.

//

//

DISCUSSION:

            Defendants move to bifurcate the issues of liability and punitive damages and preclude admission of evidence of Defendants’ financial condition until the second phase of trial.

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides:

The 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, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, 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, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. . . .

(Code Civ. Proc. § 598). Section 1048(b) further 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b).) In addition, upon application of a defendant, preclusion of financial condition evidence is mandatory until after punitive damages are found to be warranted:

The 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. Evidence 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. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

(Civ. Code § 3295(d).)

            Defendants contend that, since preclusion of evidence of Defendants’ financial condition is mandatory under section 3925, bifurcation is mandatory in the present case. Defendants also argue that justice demands bifurcation because of the risk of unfair prejudice to Defendants because a jury could be swayed in favor of Plaintiffs based on Defendants’ financial condition or wealth. As Defendant correctly observes, “[o]n its face, section 3295, subdivision (d) is a codification of the presumption that evidence of a defendant’s wealth can induce fact finders to abandon their objectivity and return a verdict based on passion and prejudice.” (Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1241.) 

Plaintiff argues that evidence of Defendants’ financial condition is relevant to the issue of liability because that evidence tends to demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was intentional. Plaintiffs’ theory of the case is that Defendants designed and conducted their operation at Royal Vista to maximize profitability by, among other things, circumventing compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, and misrepresented the adequacy of their facilities to induce the decedent to select Royal Vista for financial gain. According to Plaintiffs, evidence of Defendants’ financial condition is essential to prove this theory correct.

            The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument. Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of section 3295, evidence of Defendants’ financial condition is not relevant to the issue of liability as Plaintiffs have framed it. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs’ claims are otherwise legally sound, as the issue is not otherwise before the Court at this time, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants conducted themselves for the purpose of financial gain, not that Defendants were successful in doing so.

            The Court therefore concludes that bifurcation of the liability and punitive damages issues is warranted because it is mandatory in this instance and in the interest of justice and fairness to the parties.

CONCLUSION:

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED. Trial on the issue of Defendants’ liability will be conducted first, followed by the issue of punitive damages. Evidence of Defendants’ financial condition may not be introduced until the second phase of trial.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.