Case Number: BC662455 Hearing Date: March 14, 2018 Dept: 53

MARIA MEndoza, et al. VS. 15 minutes of fame, llc, et al., BC662455, march 14, 2018

[tentative] order re: defendants grzegorz grasela and deniSse shott’s motion to bifurcate

Defendants GRZEGORZ GRASELA and DENISSE SHOTT’s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

background

Plaintiffs Maria Mendoza (aka Connie Oltan) and Sean Oltan (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action on May 23, 2017. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts causes of action for failure to comply with California Corporations Codes; failure to comply with operating agreement; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; and accounting.

Defendants Grzegorz Grasela and Denisse Shott (jointly, “Defendants”) now move for an order bifurcating the issue of the amount of punitive damages from the liability phase of trial. Plaintiffs do not oppose to bifurcation.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure sections 597, 598 allow a court to order that the trial of any issue or part thereof proceed before the trial of any other issue to promote the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation. “Except as otherwise provided by law, the court in its discretion shall regulate the order of proof.” (Evid. Code, § 320.) “[T]rial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy.” (Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.)

On motion of the defendant, plaintiff’s right to recover punitive damages must be established before the amount of damages is tried. Civil Code section 3295(d) provides: “The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civil Code section 3294.”

Accordingly, the Court finds that bifurcation is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED. The issue of the amount of punitive damages to which Plaintiffs may be entitled will not be tried unless and until Plaintiffs’ right to recover punitive damages is established. The parties should understand that if Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, the trial on the amount of such damages will follow immediately following the conclusion of trial on liability and damages.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 14, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court