Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22STCV16500, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: .22STCV16500    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Stevens v. Power Property Management, Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV16500

Hearing Date April 26, 2023

Defendant Chung’s Motion for Bifurcation

Plaintiff Theresa Stevens fell and suffered injuries when a fence collapsed at defendant Chung’s property. Plaintiff, who is 87, alleges a rib fracture and head laceration, with traumatic brain injury.

Chung argues damages should be bifurcated, since evidence of plaintiff’s injuries is likely to produce sympathy in the jury. Chung argues liability is likely to involve fewer witnesses and less evidence and promote efficiency, as Stevens alleges substantial injuries and future medical treatment, which will require testimony from multiple treating physicians.

Code of Civ. Proc. §1048 allows bifurcation of trial when doing so would “be conducive to expedition and economy.” Issues may be bifurcated when doing so would serve “the ends of justice.” Code of Civ. Proc. §598. Courts often bifurcate damages and liability to avoid “unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.” E.g., Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 385.

There is nothing unique about this case justifying bifurcation. If Chung’s argument is accepted, practically every personal injury case involving medical testimony would be subject to bifurcation. Chung has not shown bifurcation is likely to save time, as multiple witnesses would likely be recalled in a damages phase. Chung asserts prejudice but does not substantively support this argument. There is no good cause to order bifurcation here. DENIED.