Defendant Dr. Leevil, LLC’s request for judicial notice is granted in part and denied in part. The Court takes judicial notice of the verified first amended complaint filed in the Orange County Superior Court having case number 30-2015-0801134. However, the Court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the matter stated in the documents. Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 659-660. The Court denies Dr. Leevil’s request to take judicial notice of the pendency of the unlawful detainer action and whether Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center remains in possession of the real property described as 1051 Bryan Avenue, Tustin, California 92780.

Defendant Dr. Leevil’s motion to bifurcate equitable causes of action is denied.

Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b) states:

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.

This is consistent with Code Civ. Proc. § 128(3), which confirms that the court possesses broad discretion to “provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it.”

In determining whether severance is appropriate, courts often look to other factors aside from whether the case presents separate issues. For example, courts will consider the complexity of the issues, the risk of jury confusion, judicial economy, and whether the claims present separate and independent issues. Downey Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 1072, 1086.

Although it is generally left to the parties to present their cases in the manner they feel best supports their contentions, bifurcation, regulation and prioritization can be ordered if doing so will expedite/simplify things. However, if such an order results in duplication of effort, the order may be subject to reversal. See Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1278, 1283.

Further, section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: “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. Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof, and the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated.”

A jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1237.) “Generally, in mixed actions, the equitable issues should be tried first by the court, either with or without an advisory jury…Trial courts are encouraged to apply this ‘equity first’ rule because it promotes judicial economy by potentially obviating the need for a jury trial.” Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 408-409 (internal citations omitted). “However, it is fully within a trial court’s discretion to have a jury try the legal issues first.” Darbun Enterprises, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th at 409, fn. 4. In addition, the court may also try the entire action to a jury at the same time, with the jury acting as an advisory jury on equitable issues. Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.

Dr. Leevil does not explain what evidence and witnesses will be presented in the first phase and whether they will need to be presented again for the second phase. Dr. Leevil did not established that it will be more efficient or convenient to try this case in two phases.

The elements for a cause of action to set aside the trustee’s sale are the same as the elements for a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. See Munger v. Moore (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 7; Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 112, 117; Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109; Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 996.

Based on the elements for the four causes of action at issue (wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, set aside trustee’s sale, and cancel trustee’s deed), it is highly likely that the parties will introduce the same or similar evidence to support their claims and defenses.

In addition, Dr. Leevil did not account for all of the equitable issues in this case. An action for an accounting is an equitable issue to be decided by the court. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1513, 1529-30.

Lido’s untimely joinder is denied.

Dr. Leevil shall give notice unless notice is waived.