arrow left
arrow right
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177210)
MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI (SBN: 245595) ELECTRONICALLY
GORDON & REES LLP FILED

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 Superior Court of California,
San Diego, CA 92101 County of San Francisco
Phone: (619) 696-6700 JUL 11 2011

Fax: (619) 696-7124 Clerk of the Court

BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA -
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE

RODRICK BRECKLER and
JOANN BRECKLER,

CASE NO. CGC-08-274566

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC
CO.’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
BIFURCATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF
PUNITIVE DAMAGES [MIL #1 of 29]

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, I; and

DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.)
)

L INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have brought this action against Pacific Scientific Co. (“Defendant”)

Filing date: March 12, 2008
Trial date: July 11, 2011

seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant hereby moves this Court in
limine for an order that trial on the issue of liability be bifurcated from trial on the issue of
punitive damages.
Trial on the issue of liability and the issue of punitive damages should be
bifurcated because:
© Bifurcation of the issue of punitive damages is mandatory upon motion
of any defendant pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(d). Section
3295(d) requires the Court to exclude evidence of any defendant’s financial
condition upon that defendant’s request until the actual liability of that
defendant has been established by the jury.

-1-
MOTION IN LIMINE TO BIFURCATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES [MIL #1 of 29]Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

co oD mem NI KD RH BR WY

¢ Ordering bifurcation of the trial will substantially reduce the potential
for prejudice to Defendant. The introduction of evidence of Defendant’s
financial condition before Defendant’s liability has been established can
only serve to prejudice Defendant. (Evid. Code § 352.) It would create a
significant risk that the jury would look beyond Defendants conduct and
simply award damages based on Defendant’s ability to pay.

For these reasons, the Court should bifurcate the trial on the issues of liability and

punitive damages.

Tt. DISCUSSION

A. Bifurcation Is Mandatory Upon Defendant’s Request

Civil Code section 3295(d) provides in relevant part:

The Court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of
evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact
returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is
guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.

In interpreting the scope of section 3295(d), the Court of Appeal has held:

While the statute refers only to evidence of the defendant’s financial condition, in
practice bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the
amount of punitive damages is to be offered in the second phase, while the
determination whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages (i.e., whether the
defendant is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression) is decided in the first phase
along with compensatory damages.

(Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal. App.4th 907, 919.)

B.

Accordingly, this Court should bifurcate the trial on punitive damages.

Ordering Bifurcation Will Substantially Reduce The Risk Of Prejudice To
Defendant

In addition to being mandatory, the bifurcation of the trial on punitive damages will

substantially reduce the risk of prejudice to Defendant. As noted above, the only possible effect

of the introduction of evidence of Defendant’s financial condition during the liability phase of

the trial would be to induce the jury to find Defendant liable simply because Defendant has the

ability to pay. Liability is based on fault, not wealth, and the early introduction of evidence of

Defendant’s financial condition can only serve to prejudice Defendant.

-2-

MOTION IN LIMINE TO BIFURCATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES [MIL #1 of 29}1 il. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendant’s motion and bifurcate the
3 || trial on the issue of punitive damages.
4 || Dated: fuly_& , 2011 GORDON & REES LLP
Je be off. a
5 EL €
By: 4“ £
6 oger M. Mansukhani
Steven Sobel
7 Mitchell B. Malachowski
Attomeys for Defendant
8 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
9
10
1
12
a - 13
ae 5
eek 14
$3
# end
3 z § & 15
ES = 16
Oo wn
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DANPS/}055199/99921526 1 3
MOTION IN LIMINE TO BIFURCATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES [MIL #1 of 29}