What is a Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

Recent Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

AYKUSH SUNGULYAN VS GHUKAS PAMBUKYAN

The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.) LASC Local Rule 3.3(h) provides that “[a] civil case which is not complex as defined by Standard 3.10 of the Standards of Judicial Administration may be transferred to the court from a superior court in another county, if it involves a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 403.”

  • Hearing

BRENDA JANETTE CHAVEZ , ET AL. VS RPL TRUCKING INC., ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

  • Hearing

FAYLOR V. GLASSER

Proc. § 1048(b). Although the complaint involves two separate written contracts, there appears to be an overlap in witnesses and discovery. As for the potential “juror confusion” caused by “two sets of numbers,” it is unclear why the parties would not be able to present their evidence in an orderly fashion to avoid such confusion. In lieu of separate trials, the court can regulate the order of proof in order to avoid confusion regarding the separate defenses of the separate defendants. Code Civ.

  • Hearing

MORGAN V RICKARD

The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing. ¶ The Judicial Council may adopt rules to implement this section, including rules prescribing procedures for preventing duplicative or conflicting transfer orders issued by different courts.” (Emphasis added.) (Code of Civil Procedure, § 403.) There is no proof of service of notice of this proceeding on the San Joaquin County Superior Court.

  • Hearing

SUPERIOR COURT VS. TESLA

As noted by both parties, "Code of Civil Procedure section 598 empowers the court, in a jury trial, to try the issue of liability before the issue of damages upon motion of a party. That statute states that trial may be bifurcated 'when the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice would be promoted thereby.'" (Kaiser Steel Corp. v, Westinghouse Elec. Corp., (1976) 15 55 Cal.App.3d 737, 746.)

  • Hearing

JENNIFER SOMMERFELD-CUMMINGS VS GIL TEPPER, M.D.

Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) Both of the lawsuits involve the same parties, witnesses, and common questions of fact and law regarding Plaintiff’s tenancy, Defendant’s property, and Defendant’s alleged negligence.

  • Hearing

ASHLEY CAO VS. ZACKARY KOLLROSS

Proc. § 1048(a).) Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Ashley Cao v. Zackary Kollross, et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00248206) shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

REBEKAH LYNN ROGERS ET AL VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

  • Hearing

SANTIAGO PEREZ VS KYONG KIM

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KOR V. YEPIZ

Proc. § 1048(a). The following actions shall be consolidated for all purposes. 1. Megan Kor v. Rafael Yepiz, case no. 30-2019-01085781; and 2. Erin Siess v. Rafael Yepiz, case no. 30-2019-01091170. The lowest numbered case, ending in -5781, is the lead case. Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.350(b). The Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled for 01/22/21 at 9:00 AM is continued to 05/28/21 at 9:00 AM in Dept. C32. The Jury Trial scheduled for 02/22/21 at 9:00 AM is continued to 06/21/21 at 9:00 AM in Dept. C32.

  • Hearing

MOHAMMAD ALI TABRIZIZADEH, ET AL. VS B.H. REAL ESTATE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel attests that this motion was not brought until presently due to Counsel’s belief that jury trial had not been waived until the issue was raised in Defendants’ motion to bifurcate; and due to the court closures due to the coronavirus pandemic. (See id. ¶ 7.) Next, Defendant B.H. has not asserted or shown it will suffer prejudice as a result of proceeding by way of jury trial.

  • Hearing

THOMAS J. SERGOTT VS MARRIOTT INTERNANTIONAL, INC.

Motion to Bifurcate The Motion to Bifurcate the Liability and Damages Phases at trial is CONTINUED to the trial date on September 15, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. to be heard and decided by the court assigned to conduct the trial of this action.

  • Hearing

YAPHET HARRIS VS EUROPEAN AUTO OUTLET, INC., ET AL.

Legal Standard CCP section 1048(a) grants trial courts with discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GHALY MD VS RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HEALTHPLAN

The Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED. The Court will hold a bench trial to determine if Plaintiff has evidence to overcome the Section 310 defense to his claims and Defendant will present its evidence. Closing briefs will be filed with the Court. Discovery will be limited to the Section 310 issues until the Court has ruled on this matter. The parties are to meet and confer on a date for the bench trial within 120 days of today’s date.

  • Hearing

BU CHA KWON VS JAMIE CHUNG

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, Defendant moves the Court for an order completely consolidating Case No. 19STCV03767 and Case No. 20STCV01284 on the grounds that the two matters arise from the same incident, involve the same individuals and claims, and would require the determination of the same or substantial similar questions of law and fact.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE ALEJANDRO SUASTE COLIN VS JOSE PADILLA BRAVO, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

  • Hearing

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE VS CITY OF STOCKTON, ET AL.

CCP section 1048 grants discretion to courts to order consolidation. Considering the level of uncertainty and mystery surrounding the two actions Craig I and Craig II, this Court exercises its discretion to deny consolidation. Like the Bermuda Triangle, some mysteries are better unsolved. This Court declines the Petitioner’s invitation to wade into the murky waters of this mystery. The Petitioner’s Motions to Consolidate are DENIED. V.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK D. CRAIG AND KATHRYN A.CRAIG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST VS CITY OF STOCKTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ET AL.

CCP section 1048 grants discretion to courts to order consolidation. Considering the level of uncertainty and mystery surrounding the two actions Craig I and Craig II, this Court exercises its discretion to deny consolidation. Like the Bermuda Triangle, some mysteries are better unsolved. This Court declines the Petitioner’s invitation to wade into the murky waters of this mystery. The Petitioner’s Motions to Consolidate are DENIED. V.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF DOUGLAS JOHN BIASI

Rule 3.300(h)(1)(E) provides: "If the procedures for relating pending cases under this rule do not apply, the procedures under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and rule 3.350 must be followed to consolidate cases pending in the same superior court." However, the procedures for relating pending cases under Rule 3.300 did apply here and a ruling was issued under the procedure.

  • Hearing

MANUELA LOPEZ ET AL. VS GORDON TRUCKING, INC.

Having read and considered the written motion, oppositions, and reply, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) allows the court to order a separate trial of a separate issue in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. The court believes that a decision on this issue would be more informed if made closer to the trial date. Appearances required. Ross 11/2/2020 ……………………………..

  • Hearing

DALILA ESMERALDA GOMEZ CHAMORRO ET AL VS CYNTHIA ROCIO SEBAS

.: BC717913 Matter on calendar for: motion for summary adjudication of punitive damages; motion to bifurcate Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Dalila Esmeralda Gomez-Chamorrow was the driver of a Dodge Charger with plaintiff Andrew Lopez as passenger when they allegedly were struck by a Toyota Sequoia driven by defendant Cynthia Sebastiani. The incident occurred near the intersection of El Segundo Boulevard and Alameda Street in Compton, California.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAIDU SINGH VS. BIANCA MARINTEZ

Proc. § 1048(a).) Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Madhu Singh, et al. v. Bianca Martinez, et al. (Case No. 34-2018-00242126) shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KRAMER VS GASTON

Regarding consolidation, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KRAMER VS GASTON

Regarding consolidation, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JTS COMMUNITIES INC VS. ZB N A

Proc. § 598, the trial judge can make this determination on his or her own motion at any time. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 116     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.