Case Number: KC068638 Hearing Date: February 08, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Sierra Palms Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Robert S. Nishimura, et al. (KC069638)

MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE TRIAL

Moving Party: Plaintiff Sierra Palms Homeowner’s Association, Inc.

Respondents: No timely opposition filed (due 1/26/18)

POS: Moving OK

This is a homeowner’s association dispute regarding tenancy. The complaint, filed 8/10/16, asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Governing Documents—Injunctive Relief

2. Declaratory Relief—Breach of Governing Documents

3. Damages—Breach of Governing Documents

4. Abatement of Nuisance and Nuisance Per Se

The Final Status Conference is set for 3/12/18. A jury trial is set for 3/20/18.

Plaintiff Sierra Palms Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (“plaintiff”) moves the court for an order to bifurcate the trial set for 3/20/18. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in this action relative to CC&R violations that continue to occur at the Sierra Palms development. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff argues that these issues should be decided by the court, not a jury; as such, the court should bifurcate the trial such that the equitable issues and attorney’s fees and costs recovery are decided first by the court. Plaintiff believes that decisions regarding these issues will be dispositive of any remaining issues.

“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…” CCP § 598.

“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.” CCP § 1048(b).

“Except as otherwise provided by law, the court in its discretion shall regulate the order of proof.” Evidence Code § 320. “The order of trial, in mixed actions with equitable and legal issues, has great significance because the first factfinder may bind the second when determining factual issues common to the equitable and legal issues. (Wegner et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence [(The Rutter Group 1993)] ¶ 2:160, p. 2–32.1.) It is well-established in California jurisprudence that ‘[t]he court may decide the equitable issues first, and this decision may result in factual and legal findings that effectively dispose of the legal claims.’ (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1244, italics omitted.) …[T]he “better practice” is for ‘the trial court [to] determine the equitable issues before submitting the legal ones to the jury.’ (Bate v. Marsteller (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 605, 617). The historical reason for this procedure, at least as concerns equitable defenses, is that the same order of trial was observed when there were separate law and equity courts: ‘If a defendant at law had an equitable defense, he resorted to a bill in equity to enjoin the suit at law, until he could make his equitable defense effective by a hearing before the chancellor.’ (Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon Nat. Bank (1922) 260 U.S. 235, 243). ‘[T]he practical reason for this procedure is that the trial of the equitable issues may dispense with the legal issues and end the case.’ (Moss v. Bluemm (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 70, 73). In short, ‘trial of equitable issues first may promote judicial economy.’ (Nwosu, supra, at p. 1238).” Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156-157.

Here, plaintiff asserts equitable causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants, moreover, have listed equitable defenses in their answer, including waiver and estoppel. Accordingly, the motion is granted, to the extent that all equitable issues will be decided first by the court. The court will entertain the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs if and when appropriate.