Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV33525, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV33525, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33525 Hearing Date: February 19, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 19, 2025 TRIAL DATE: March 4, 2025

CASE: Roselia Orrego Carrera v. United Moving Cars, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV33525

MOTION TO BIFURCATE DAMAGES

MOVING PARTY: Defendants United Moving Cars and Juan Carlos Acosta Martinez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Roselia Orrego Carrera

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for retaliation and wage and hour violations that was filed on October 14, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for filing a police report and pursuing a worker’s compensation claim for harassment perpetrated by a client of her employer.

Defendants move to bifurcate compensatory and punitive damages at trial and exclude evidence of defendants’ financial condition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED in part as follows. The motion to bifurcate as to punitive damages is granted. Should Plaintiff prove malice, oppression, or fraud by clear and convincing evidence during the initial phase of trial, the Court will then proceed to trial on the issue of the proper amount of punitive damages. Evidence of Defendant’s profits and financial condition may not be introduced until the second phase of trial. As to compensatory damages, the motion is denied.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Bifurcate

Defendants move to bifurcate compensatory and punitive damages at trial and exclude evidence of defendants’ financial condition.

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 correctly argue that bifurcation of punitive damages is mandatory under Code § 3295(d), and that they will be prejudiced by introduction of evidence of their financial condition. “On 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’s arguments as to the distinction between this evidence and bifurcation of punitive damages is misplaced. “While the statute refers only to evidence of the defendant’s financial condition, in practice bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the amount of punitive damages is to be offered in the second phase, while the determination whether plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages (i.e., whether the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression) is decided in the first phase along with compensatory damages.”¿ (Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907, 919.)¿¿¿¿

However, as to compensatory damages, Defendants have not provided any legal authority or argument as to this request. As such, this request is denied.

CONCLUSION:

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2025 ___________________________________

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.