Case Number: BC502177    Hearing Date: September 08, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

LAUDI SMITH,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION DBA AMTRAK, et al.,

Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC502177

Hearing Date: September 8, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION DBA AMTRAK’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL INTO TWO PHASES: LIABILITY AND DAMAGES

Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba Amtrak’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial into Two Phases: Liability and Damages is DENIED

Defendant moves to bifurcate the liability and damages phases at trial pursuant to CCP Sections 598 and 1048(b). CCP Section 598 states:

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.

CCP Section 1048(b) states in relevant part:

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 the state or of the United States.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for liability is extremely weak because this was an unwitnessed accident for which Plaintiff has provided conflicting accounts. The motion, however, fails to provide any evidence to demonstrate the weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claim, other than a conclusory statement by defense counsel that Plaintiff told conflicting stories of how the incident occurred and that these stories conflict with witness statements, train schedules, work schedules and Amtrak policies. (See Motion, Popelar, Jr. Decl. (“Popelar, Jr. Decl.”) ¶4.) Based on this minimal evidence, Defendant opines that the liability phase of the trial will be much less complicated and time consuming than the damages phase. (Popelar, Jr. Decl. ¶5.) Despite Defendant’s argument that
Plaintiff will only call two witnesses, she contends that both parties will call 12 witnesses to address liability. (Opp., Kropp, Jr. Decl. (“Kropp, Jr. Decl.”) ¶7.) Defendant fails to indicate the number of witnesses it will call to address liability. (See Popelar, Jr. Decl. ¶5A.) Defendant’s argument that the liability phase will be short and quick is unsupported by the evidence and does not support its request for bifurcation.

Also, the evidence regarding the damages phase supports a trial that is not bifurcated. Defendant contends that during the damages phase testimony will be required from Plaintiff, her physicians, Amtrak employees and multiple experts. (Popelar, Jr. Decl. ¶5A.) Given that Plaintiff and Amtrak employees will already be testifying regarding liability, the witnesses for both phases partially overlap. Thus, court efficiency supports hearing liability and damages in one joint trial.

Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff will present evidence of her financial hardship as a single mother, the health problems of her daughter, and Defendant’s failure to accommodate her need to work while injured to support her claim for damages. (Popelar, Jr. Decl. ¶5B.) Defendant argues that this damages evidence will be prejudicial because it will cause the jury to sympathize with Plaintiff before deciding if Defendant was negligent. It is not enough, however, to support bifurcation by arguing that the jury might sympathize with the Plaintiff’s damages, or every case would be bifurcated. To the extent Defendant believes that testimony on damages could impact the trial as to liability, this is an issue to be addressed as an in limine motion or a request for a limiting instruction to the jury.

Defendant has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that bifurcation is appropriate either for efficiency or to avoid prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 8, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Los Angeles Superior Court