What is a Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

Recent Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion to Bifurcate Moving Party: Plaintiff LA Live Properties, LLC Resp. Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Kerry Moy and Ka Wai Kwan TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff LA Live Properties, LLC’s action arises from the alleged breach of a lease agreement (the “Lease”) in connection with a property located at 800 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite A-120, Los Angeles, CA 90015 (the “Property”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(KC066276) _____________________________________________ Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC’s MOTION TO BIFURCATE Responding Party: Plaintiff, USA Waste of California, Inc. Tentative Ruling Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC’s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

FEDORA BLISS, LLC VS JOHN LABIB + ASSOCIATES, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN

Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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 November 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to be heard and decided by the court assigned to conduct the trial of this action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

FRANCISCO VACA VS. RAYPAK INC

The Court intends to rule as follows; To GRANT Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate the punitive damages phase from the liability phase of a trial. Defendant filed and served the instant Motion to Bifurcate on January 28, 2020. Plaintiff filed and served a partial opposition on February 6, 2020. In the opposition, Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant's request to bifurcate the punitive damages phase from the liability phase of a trial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BARBOT V. CONWELL

“…Consolidation under section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be limited. (General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92, 52 Cal.Rptr. 460, 416 P.2d 492.)” (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DANIEL GARCIA VS BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC

Bigge points out that Plas-Tal stated in its case management statement in section 14 regarding bifurcation (filed February 25, 2020) that it “intend[s] to file a motion for an order bifurcating and request separate trials under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) of the Plaintiff’s personal injury action.” (See Dennis A. Cammarano Decl., ¶12.) CONCLUSION AND ORDER Bigge’s motion for an order directing T-Mobile to respond to the subpoenas is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GUANGYU ZHAO VS FCC LOGISTICS INC ET AL

Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) “A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.”¿ (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth the procedural requirements for bringing a motion to consolidate. The notice of motion must: A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), the Court will consolidate the actions for discovery, but not for trial. The Court is not precluding Plaintiff from trying again, at the appropriate time down the road, to consolidate the actions for trial. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED in part and DENIED (without prejudice) in part as stated above. Moving party to prepare the order after hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANE N.R. DOE, ET AL. V. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 provides for the consolidation of separate action pending before the same court when the actions involve common questions of law or fact. The statute’s purpose is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay; enhance trial court efficiency; and avoid the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) Ch. 12-E, § 12:340.) Analysis. Lucia Mar argues that there are common questions of fact in both Actions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ANTONIO AGUILERA ANAYA VS. TWT EXPRESS LLC

Proc. § 598, the trial judge can make this determination on his or her own motion at any time. The Court shares Plaintiff's concern of the potential for delay arising from Cross-Defendants failure to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110, which requires service of a cross-complaint on new parties within 30 days of filing. However, in the event of any such delay, the Court finds sanctions under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f), rather than bifurcation of trial, is the appropriate remedy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

AMY RILEY VS. PAREX USA INC.

Proc. § 1048(a).) Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Amy Riley, et al. v. Parex USA, Inc., et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00269839) 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. Moving Party shall file the order granting this motion in all cases to be consolidated. (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., §§ 598, 1048(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MAZO V. PACI STRUCTURES, INC.

Defendants’ (Paci Structures, Inc. and Luis Alberto Mora Cisneros) Motion to Bifurcate Affirmative Defenses Regarding the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine (Motion), filed on 3-16-20 under ROA No. 97, is CONTINUED to 10-30-20 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff based on the same issue as to whether Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement is scheduled to be heard on 7-27-20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MA CRUZ MORENO VS SERVICON SYSTEMS INC ET AL

THE HEARING ON THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION, THE MOTION TO TRIFURCATE AND THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE WILL BE CONTINUED. THE COURT NEEDS MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THE MOTIONS. THE CLERK WILL CONTACT THE PARTIES TO SET A NEW DATE. DEFENDANT SERVICON SYSTEMS IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. NO APPEARANCE AT THE HEARING IS NECESSARY.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NARDONE VS. ITAL PIZZA, INC.

Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) Here, both the Nardone and Cagney matters involve similar facts and claims pertaining to underlying business disputes between the parties. Indeed, the following causes of action are duplicated in both of the operative complaints: trade name infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, intentional interference with economic relations, negligent interference with economic relations, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ABBOTT VS WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING

Milgard seeks non-expert fees: $80.62 for travel expense to Pete Cruz’s deposition, $90.00 filing fee for a motion to bifurcate, $90.00 filing fee for a motion to dismiss, and $1,450.00 for first filing fees. Milgard previously tried to recover these through the memorandum of costs. Milgard’s revised request for $119,591.31, less $8,557.00 for the questionable fees above, less $44,553.68 in expert fees, and less $1.710.62 in non-expert fees comes to $64,770.01.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ABEL CONTRERAS ET AL VS PACER CARTAGE INC ET AL

Escobar and hence are reasonable: o Motion to Bifurcate o Trial Brief o Joint Witness lists o Notice of Continuance Given these findings, the Court awards reasonable costs for defendants against Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Motion to Bifurcate Trial, Filed by the Defendants City of Santa Monica and Alfredo Maldonado is DENIED. Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the Court may order that the trial of any issue shall precede the trial of any other issue “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ELIZABETH RICO ET AL VS ELYN M MIRANDA

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PASSPORT 420 LLC, ET AL. V. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Avenatti and Avenatti & Associates, APC TENTATIVE RULINGS: For the reasons articulated below, the motion to bifurcate and advance discovery and trial of the 17th affirmative defense, and to stay discovery on all other issues, is denied. The motion to bifurcate discovery and trial of the bad faith claims until coverage has been determined is denied as to the stay of discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

THORESON VS. DI OVERNIGHT LLC

Motion to Bifurcate Moving Party: Defendants DI Overnite LLC and Philip Nabal Responding Party: N/A Ruling: Defendants’ unopposed motion to bifurcate punitive damages issues is granted. (Civ. Code § 3295(d); Torres v. Automobile Club of So. Calif. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777-78.) Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

MARGARET A. WILLIAMS VS SYLVIA L. HARMON

Proc., § 1048(a).) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Margaret A. Williams’ Motion to Consolidate is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Margaret A. Williams (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant Sylvia L. Harmon (“Defendant”) for wrongful eviction on June 10, 2019. Plaintiff was a tenant at 4426 3rd Avenue, Los Angeles (“the subject property”), which is owned by Defendant and Plaintiff’s brother. (Compl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ANDREA LOMBARDI VS RONALD F LOMBARDI AND KATHLEEN A LOMBARDI

On February 14, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate the 5th (breach of fiduciary duty) cause of action from the remaining counts, and a trial was thereafter held on the method of partition in which the Court ordered the properties be partitioned by sale in its May 17, 2017 Interlocutory Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CIRCUIT ASSEMBLY CORP VS. HANRAHAN

This, in essence, is a motion to bifurcate the issues in the trial currently scheduled for July 6, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 108     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.