Court

Home » Online Services » Tentative Rulings

Tentative Ruling

Judge Pauline Maxwell
Department 6 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Courtney Crosby vs Spitzer Helocopter LLC et al
Case No: 19CV02243
Hearing Date: Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Transfer LA Action and Consolidate; Bifurcate Trial; Case Management Conference

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for order transferring Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV10288 to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court for consolidation with this action is granted. In order to allow sufficient time to complete the transfer and consolidation of the two actions, the proceedings in this action are ordered stayed for thirty days. The motion for order bifurcating trial of the issue of liability from the issue of damages is denied.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Courtney Crosby brings this action for personal injuries sustained in a helicopter crash that occurred on May 5, 2017, in Santa Barbara, California. Plaintiff was a passenger in the helicopter and was taking a tour of Santa Barbara when the pilot began experiencing problems with the helicopter’s engine and the aircraft crashed, injuring plaintiff. Defendant Michael Ower (“Ower”) is the owner of the helicopter and the owner of defendant SB Air, LLC (“SB Air”), a helicopter tour company. Defendant Eric Spitzer (“Spitzer”) is the owner of defendant Spitzer Helicopter, LLC (“Spitzer Helicopter”), a helicopter leasing company. Defendant Robinson Helicopter, Inc. (“Robinson”) manufactured the subject helicopter, a Robinson R44 Raven 1, Serial Number 0961, FAA Registration Number N981RR.

There are two motions scheduled for hearing. In the first motion, defendants Ower, SB Air, Spitzer, and Spitzer Helicopter request an order transferring to this court the action entitled Turner Conrad v. Spitzer Helicopter, Inc., et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV10288 (the “Los Angeles Action”), and consolidating that action with this case. Both cases are for personal injuries arising out of the same helicopter crash in Santa Barbara. The moving defendants are also requesting a stay of this action pending completion of the transfer and consolidation of the cases. The motion is supported by a stipulation of the parties in each action.

In the second motion, defendant Robinson seeks an order bifurcating trial of the issue of liability from the issue of damages. Robinson contends that any evidence regarding the injuries plaintiff suffered as a result of the helicopter accident would only serve to prejudice the fact finder against defendant, while irrelevant to a determination of liability. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Actions

The transfer of actions for consolidation purposes is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 403, which provides:

“A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.

* * *

“The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.”

Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1, in turn, provides:

“Coordination [consolidation] of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.”

In this action, plaintiff Courtney Crosby (“Crosby”) seeks damages for personal injuries sustained in a helicopter accident that occurred on May 5, 2017, near Santa Barbara, California. (Montanari Dec., ¶5, Ex. B.) There were two passengers in the helicopter when it crashed, Crosby and Turner Conrad (“Conrad”). Almost simultaneously with this action, Conrad filed a separate action for personal injuries arising out of the same helicopter accident in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Turner Conrad v. Spitzer Helicopters, et al., Case No. 19STCV10288. (Montanari Dec., ¶6, Ex. C.) All parties in the two actions have stipulated that the Conrad action now pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court should be transferred to this court and consolidated with the Crosby action. (Montanari Dec., ¶3, Ex. A.)

As set forth in the moving papers, the requirements of Section 404.1 are met by the following facts and circumstances:

● The cases are not complex, as defined by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.400, and they have not been designated as complex by any court. (Montanari Dec., ¶8.)

● There are common issues of law and fact as both actions arise out of the same helicopter accident and allege virtually the same causes of action for negligence and strict products liability against the same defendants. (Montanari Dec., ¶9.)

● The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel will be served by consolidation because the percipient witnesses and expert witness regarding liability and causation are identical and the parties will avoid duplicative discovery demands and responses and the witnesses will not be subjected to multiple depositions and appearances at trial. (Montanari Dec., ¶10.)

● Judicial facilities and resources will be more efficiently utilized if the case are consolidated because there will be a single judge and a single courtroom hearing pretrial motions and a single trial, thus avoiding duplication of judicial staff time in two counties. (Montanari Dec., ¶11.)

● Both cases are in the early stages of litigation and the bulk of discovery on the common issue of liability has not yet commenced. (Montanari Dec., ¶13.)

● Consolidation of the actions will encourage settlement because the litigants may not be inclined to settle their cases if common issues are being litigated in other courts with the possibility of different outcomes. (Montanari Dec., ¶12.)

Based on the foregoing, the court will grant defendants’ motion to transfer to this court the action entitled Turner Conrad v. Spitzer Helicopter, Inc., et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV10288. The court finds that the two actions involve common questions of law and fact, that neither action has been deemed complex, and that the transfer of the Los Angeles Action to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court will promote the ends of justice. In order to allow sufficient time to complete the transfer and consolidation of the two actions, the proceedings in this action are ordered stayed for thirty (30) days.

Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages

In this motion, Robinson, the manufacturer of the subject helicopter, requests an order bifurcating the issue of liability from the issue of damages at trial. Bifurcation of issues at trial is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 598, which provides that “[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 . . . 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 . . . .” In addition, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he 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 or of any number of causes of action or issues . . . .”

Robinson argues that bifurcation of the issues of liability and damages should be ordered for two reasons. First, bifurcation would promote judicial economy and efficiency because Crosby is likely to call numerous expert witnesses regarding the medical care provided to her, none of whom are expected to testify as to liability, which involves very different expert witness evidence relating to weather, flight patterns, and helicopter design and technology. Should Robinson prevail on liability at trial, it would be unnecessary for Crosby to call these numerous medical experts, thus saving judicial time and resources. Second, given the nature and extent of Crosby’s injuries, it would be prejudicial to Robinson to have evidence of damages presented at the same time as evidence of liability. Without bifurcation, the jury will be asked to evaluate damages, including plaintiff’s medical care, before Robinson presents its case-in-chief regarding the cause of the accident.

Whether trial of an action should be bifurcated rests largely in the court’s discretion. Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corporation (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504; see also, Buran Equipment Company v. H&C Investment Company (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-344 (under Code of Civil Procedure Section 598, trial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy). In general, bifurcation is the exception, not the rule. “[T]he general practice is to try all the issues in a case at one time; and it is only in exceptional instances where there are special and persuasive reasons for departing from this practice that distinct causes of action asserted in the same case may be made the subjects of separate trials.” Miller v. American Bonding Company (1921) 257 U.S. 304, 308. Here, Crosby opposes bifurcation. Although Robinson filed its motion to bifurcate before the Conrad case was ordered transferred from Los Angeles Superior Court and consolidated with this action, Conrad likewise opposes bifurcation. (Nickerson Dec., ¶6.)

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate will be denied. Robinson broadly asserts that bifurcation will promote judicial economy because of the number of anticipated witnesses without actually identifying those witnesses or the specific facts about which they will testify. Robinson also claims that plaintiff “will be unable to prove Robinson’s liability at trial” (Motion, p. 3:18), but this is highly speculative since discovery in the case is just beginning. While Crosby acknowledges that she was treated by several doctors for her injuries (Opposition, p. 4:25-26), the court sees no reason why her damages claim cannot be handled in an efficient and expeditious manner. Moreover, any benefit that may arise from bifurcation is likely to be outweighed by the fact that separate trials could just as easily prolong the proceedings and increase expenses because two trials would require two sets of opening statements, two sets of jury instructions, two sets of final arguments, and two sets of deliberations.

Robinson’s motion will be denied for the additional reason that it has failed to demonstrate that bifurcation is necessary to prevent prejudice, otherwise the jury may decide the case on sympathy rather than the evidence. Any alleged sympathy for plaintiff can be corrected by properly instructing the jurors that they are only to award damages based on the facts in the case. See, CACI 5002. Jurors are presumed to understand and follow jury instructions. Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 598. Moreover, bifurcating the trial cannot completely protect the jury from Crosby’s injuries. Plaintiff will most certainly be present in the courtroom and, during voir dire, the potential jurors will likely be asked about severe injuries, medical doctors, and other issues connected with personal injury cases, so they will already have some knowledge about the damages in the case.