Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2020-00008183-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 09, 2023

08/11/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00008183-CU-WT-CTL CHARTRAND VS SOLARFLARE COMMUNICATIONS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Bifurcation, 05/25/2023

Tentative Rulings 1) on OSC re Appointment of Discovery Referee; 2) on Defendants' Motion to

Bifurcate PAGA Claims Chartrand v. Solarflare, Case No. 2020-8183 August 11, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a PAGA/retaliation/wrongful termination case arising out of plaintiff's 2012-2019 employment at Solarflare as a senior computer engineering executive. For further background, the court incorporates part 1 of the minutes from September 16, 2022 (ROA 279). On that day, the court denied defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings after full briefing and argument.

The court incorporates for further background the minutes for June 16, 2023 (ROA 451). On that day, among other things, the court granted defendants' motion to bifurcate punitive damages and ordered the parties to show cause why the many discovery disputes in this case should not be referred to a discovery referee in the first instance.* The OSC was set for today, the same day as defendants' motion to bifurcate plaintiff's representative claims. ROA 329-330, 341, 450.

There is no opposition to the bifurcation motion. Nor has any party responded to the OSC. However, it appears that several of the discovery hearings were recently vacated. See ROA 461-470.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. The court incorporates part 3E of ROA 451.

B. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 598, motions such as the one filed by defendants seeking a phasing of the trial are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. See Mellone v. Lewis, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 4, 7; Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086. The issues a trial court must analyze include trial time savings, the possibility of overlap of proof, the need for repetitive proof, the possibility of inconsistent results, and the need to avoid prejudice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2977121 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHARTRAND VS SOLARFLARE COMMUNICATIONS INC [IMAGED]  37-2020-00008183-CU-WT-CTL 3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The court hereby refers all discovery motions to a discovery referee, and confirms the preliminary findings expressed in ROA 451, part 3E. All current discovery motions that have not already been vacated are hereby vacated. All future discovery motions are to be calendared, in the first instance, before the discovery referee.

B. The unopposed motion to bifurcate trial is denied.

While Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. __, 142 S.Ct. 1906 requires a court to bifurcate and order individual PAGA claims to arbitration when an appropriate arbitration agreement exists, defendants have not cited any authority holding that splitting individual and non-individual PAGA claims is permissible outside the arbitration context.** Moreover, even if there was such authority, the court is not persuaded that the proposed bifurcation will promote judicial economy and efficiency. This case is already three-and-a-half years old. Discovery has been extensive and trial has been continued numerous times. The court therefore believes that bifurcating plaintiff's individual and non-individual PAGA claims will only cause more expense and delay.

See Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1281, 1291 ('[P]aring away the plaintiff's individual claims does not deprive the plaintiff of standing to pursue representative claims under PAGA, so long as the plaintiff was employed by the defendant and suffered one or more of the alleged violations.'); see also Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 548 ('Hurdles that impede the effective prosecution of representative PAGA actions undermine the Legislature's objectives.').

_____________________________ *Yet another discovery motion was filed after the OSC was issued. ROA 455-460.

**Defendants do not cite Viking River in their moving papers.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2977121