arrow left
arrow right
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
   GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965)
 2 CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP                                           ELECTRONICALLY

   Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400                                        FILED
 3                                                                        Superior Court of California,
   San Francisco, CA 94111                                                 County of San Francisco

 4 Telephone:     (415) 343-7100                                              04/07/2023
   Facsimile:     (415) 343-7101                                           Clerk of the Court
                                                                             BY: ERNALYN BURA
 5 Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com                                                    Deputy Clerk
   Email: gkipnis@conmetkane.com
 6
   HEIDI K. HUBBARD (pro hac vice)
 7
   BETH A. STEWART (pro hac vice)
 8 DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN (pro hac vice)
   WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
 9 680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
   Washington, DC 20024
10 Telephone:     (202) 434-5000
11 Facsimile:     (202) 434-5029
   Email: hhubbard@wc.com
12 Email: bstewart@wc.com
   Email: driskin@wc.com
13
   Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
14

15                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16                                     COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

17   Coordination Proceeding                   Case No. CJC-20-005061
     Special Title (Rule 3.550)
18                                             JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
                                               PROCEEDING NO. 5061
19
     IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES                Case Assigned to the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng,
20                                             Dept. 613
     This document applies to:
21                                             LYFT, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
     Jane Doe v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20STCV24962   BIFURCATE TRIAL AND PROHIBIT
22                                             EVIDENCE ON THE AMOUNT OF
     (Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.)                   PUNITIVE DAMAGES [NO. 6]
23

24                                             Judge:      Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
                                               Dept.:      613
25                                             Date:       April 24, 2023
                                               Time:       9:00 a.m.
26
27

28

     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                                LYFT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
30
 1          Lyft, Inc. moves under California Civil Code § 3295(d) and California Evidence Code §§ 350

 2 and 352 to bifurcate the trial into two phases and prohibit Plaintiff’s counsel from presenting any

 3 evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the amount of punitive damages until the second phase.

 4                                                  ARGUMENT

 5          Civil Code § 3295(d) is clear that the Court “shall … preclude the admission of evidence of [a]

 6 defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff

 7 awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” (emphasis

 8 added.) In practice, this requires a court to bifurcate the trial into two phases: In the first phase, the jury

 9 delivers a verdict on liability, compensatory damages (if any), and the Plaintiff’s entitlement to punitive

10 damages (if any). In the second phase, the jury considers the amount, if any, of punitive damages.

11          Although § 3295 “refers only to evidence of the defendant’s financial condition,” the rule as

12 applied is broader. Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp., 160 Cal. App. 4th 907, 919 (2008). “[I]n practice

13 bifurcation under this section means that all evidence relating to the amount of punitive damages is to be

14 offered in the second phase.” Id. “[I]f” the jury “decide[s] to award punitive damages,” among the

15 factors it considers “in determining the amount” are how “reprehensible” the defendant’s conduct was,

16 including whether the defendant’s “conduct involved a pattern or practice” and whether the defendant

17 “acted with trickery or deceit,” and what amount of damages “is necessary to punish” the defendant

18 “and discourage future wrongful conduct.” CACI 3942 (Punitive Damages – Individual Defendant –

19 Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)).1 To the extent that evidence or argument addresses these issues, it

20 should be excluded under the rule Holdgrafer articulated until the jury renders a verdict on Plaintiff’s

21 entitlement to punitive damages.

22          The Court thus should preclude in limine any evidence or argument regarding the amount of

23 punitive damages until the jury has returned a verdict concluding by clear and convincing evidence that

24 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. This evidence is irrelevant and

25 prejudicial until the jury has made that determination. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350, 352.

26
27   1
    The directions for CACI 3946, which concerns defendants who are corporate entities, instructs the
28 Court to use CACI 3942 for the second phase of a bifurcated trial.
                                                     1
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                                             LYFT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
30
 1                                               CONCLUSION

 2          For the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter an order bifurcating the trial into two phases

 3 and prohibiting Plaintiff’s counsel from presenting any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the

 4 amount of punitive damages until the second phase.

 5

 6 DATED: April 7, 2023                                  Respectfully submitted,

 7                                                       CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
 8

 9

10
                                                         WARREN METLITZKY
11                                                       GABRIELA KIPNIS

12
                                                         WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
13

14                                                       HEIDI K. HUBBARD
                                                         BETH A. STEWART
15                                                       DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN
16
                                                         Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
                                                         2
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                                           LYFT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
30