Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV16452, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV16452 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTION
TO BIFURCATE IS DENIED
Background
On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff Andrew Mahoney filed the instant action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“the City”) and Does 1 through 100. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:
1) Failure
to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m));
2) Discrimination
in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.);
3) Harassment
in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.); and
4) Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.).
Legal Standard
“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 . . . or of any separate issue . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048,¿subd. (b).) Additionally, “[t]he 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 . . . 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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)¿
“It is within the discretion
of the court to bifurcate issues or order separate trials of actions, such as
for breach of contract and bad faith, and to determine the order in which those
issues are to be decided.” (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v.
Ranger Ins. Co.¿(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.) “The major
objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of
evidence.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon¿(1971) 3
Cal.3d 875, 888.)¿
Discussion
Defendants move the Court for bifurcation on the bases that they seek to try the validity of Special Order No. 7 before determining the Defendants’ liability for the remaining violations of the FEHA.
In 2006, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) promulgated Special Order 7 which sets out duties of employees who suffer injuries resulting in temporary restrictions, and sometimes in permanent restrictions, along with the Departments’ duties to engage in an interactive process and accommodate temporary restrictions. Defendants argue that under Special Order No. 7, when an officer’s permanent restriction prevents them from ever being a full-duty officer, the LAPD shall engage in an interactive process to “off-ramp” the offer into an equivalent civilian position. Defendants contend that Special Order No. 7 is valid while Plaintiffs assert that Special Order No. 7 is invalid under the FEHA.
Defendants assert that bifurcation will streamline litigation by precluding a double recovery for Plaintiff in the event he prevails in this case, is subsequently terminated and files a second suit challenging the termination.
Plaintiff argues that the issue at trial will not be the legality of Special Order No. 7 but whether Defendants violated FEHA. In ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment on April 08, 2022, the Court found that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the fact that the City imposed permanent restrictions on Plaintiff necessarily meant that Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of a police officer. (Minute Order. 04/08/21.) Moreover, issues of fact remained as to whether Special Order No. 7 was uniformly enforced. (Id.) While the applicability and validity of Special Order No. 7 remains an issue here Defendants fail to show how bifurcation will result in judicial efficiency. Instead, Defendants’ arguments in favor of bifurcation are based on speculation that Plaintiff could seek a double recovery in the future by filing a new complaint. This concern is not grounds for bifurcating a trial.
Finding that Defendants have failed to establish how bifurcation will expedite or simplify the trial, the Court DENIES the Motion to Bifurcate.
Conclusion
Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Bifurcate and Separate the Trial of Liability from Damages is DENIED.
Defendants to give notice.