Case Number: MC023779    Hearing Date: July 24, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

REGINA MCINTYRE, )
) Case Number MC 023779
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
FRANK KENTON, ) July 24, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The motion of Defendant Frank Kenton to bifurcate trial on the issues of liability and damages came on for hearing on July 24, 2014. Plaintiff Regina McIntyre appeared through her counsel of record, _________________. Defendant Frank Kenton appeared through his counsel of record, _______________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The motion of Defendant Frank Kenton to bifurcate trial on the issues of liability and damages is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of July, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

REGINA MCINTYRE, )
) Case Number MC 023779
Plaintiff, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
FRANK KENTON, ) July 24, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case is a premises liability personal injury case arising out of an allegedly dangerous condition. As a result of the condition, Plaintiff Regina McIntyre (“Plaintiff”) fell and was injured on April 19, 2012. She brought the present suit on October 10, 2012 alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Defendant Frank Kenton (“Defendant”) filed his answer on February 27, 2013 with a demand for jury trial.

2. Trial date was originally set at June 17, 2014. Pursuant to Court order dated May 28, 2014, the trial date was continued till September 26, 2014.

3. Defendant filed the present motion on June 25, 2014. Plaintiff filed her Opposition on July 10, 2014.

4. Standard for ruling on motion to bifurcate trial – There are several statutory provisions which govern a court’s discretion to bifurcate a trial. Code of Civil Procedure §598 provides in relevant part, “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.” Code of Civil Procedure §1048(b) provides that the court may order a separate trial of any cause of action in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy. Finally, in support of the court’s discretion, Evidence Code § 320 provides that the court has the power to regulate the order of proof.

5. Section 598 was enacted by the legislature to avoid “the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.” Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955. Indeed, even in cases where there is some evidentiary overlap between what is needed to prove liability and what is needed to prove damages, so long as such repetition is minimal, bifurcation remains proper. See Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 737, 746 (“while some evidence relating to damages would also be necessary on the issue of liability, only a small fraction of the evidence would be repeated so that the ends of justice were served by bifurcation”)(superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Billings v. Edwards (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 238).

6. Defendant contends bifurcation will serve judicial economy and efficiency, asserting that the liability and damages phases of the trial will each take approximately three days, involving numerous lay and expert witnesses. Defendant confidently asserts that he has “a strong probability [of] prevail[ing] on liability.” Motion at 4:4. Plaintiff responds that “there is little to no dispute over the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries . . . . Indeed, it is entirely possible the parties might even stipulate to the damages.” Opposition at ¶3.

7. As noted above, the legislature enacted §598 in order to expedite trial to save time and expense. The key justification rests on the assumption that a trial on damages is unnecessary where the Defendant likely will, and does, prevail on the issue of liability. However, it is also to be expected that a bifurcated trial will consume more time and involve greater expense if the Defendant does not prevail on the issue of liability. As a result, the Court will not grant a motion to bifurcate absent a compelling showing that Plaintiff will likely prevail on the issue of liability.

8. In support of its motion, Defendant relies solely on the declaration that no evidence exists to sustain a finding of negligence. Yet, Defendant also notes that he anticipates testimony from the parties, at least one expert witness, and two other witnesses at trial solely on the issue of liability. Motion at 3:25-27. In Opposition, Plaintiff suggests that Defendant himself may give facts suggesting liability. Opposition at ¶5.

9. Under such circumstances, Defendant’s conclusory assertion that “there is a strong probability defendant will prevail on liability,” Motion at 4:3-4, is simply inadequate.

10. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial is DENIED.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of July, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE