Preview
aS
Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ae
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
= MINUTE ORDER
City of Santa Clara vs D.E. Il Restaurants, Inc. Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM
19CV340508 Hearing Type: Motion: Bifurcate
Date of Hearing: 07/14/2020 Comments: 13
Heard By: Manoukian, Socrates P Location Department 20
Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Hientrang Tranthien
Court Interpreter:
Court Investigator:
Parties Present: Future Hearings:
Exhibits:
-
Mr. Conner and Ms. Yu appears for Plaintiff in person
Mr Jenny appears for Defendant via Court Call
Ms. Cammy Bowen is Official Reporter Pro Tempore for Plaintiff. Cour Reporter Form was completed (per
reporter) but not in our system. Counsel indicated that he would make sure the form is filed with the Court.
Court grants use of reporter.
Tentative Ruling contested by Plaintiff
Argument Heard
Tentative Ruling Adapted. See below:
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL OF CROSS-COMPLAINT
I. Statement of Facts.
Plaintiff City of Santa Clara (the City ) filed an eminent domain action against Defendant D.E. II
Restaurants, Inc. ( D.E. Il Restaurants ) on January 2, 2019. On April 10, 2019, D.E. Il Restaurants filed
a Cross-Complaint for Inverse Condemnation against the City.
The Cross-Complaint demands precondemnation damages from the alleged deflation of the
value of the business after the City sought to acquire D.E. Il Restaurant s lease to a City-owned building.
The City wanted to acquire D.E. Il Restaurant s lease in order to make infrastructure improvements to the
property for a mixed-use development known as City Place. On December 11, 2018, the City s City
Council adopted a resolution declaring that the public interest and necessity required acquisition of the
property.
Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 1of 5
aS
Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ae
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
= MINUTE ORDER
As of the moment, pending the proposed bifurcation, there will be two trials conducted for the
resolution of this case: (1) trial for the eminent domain action filed by the City; (2) trial for the inverse
condemnation action filed by D.E. Il Restaurant.
The City, as Cross-Defendant, now moves the Court to bifurcate the inverse condemnation
action, with trial of the issue of liability preceding trial of the issue of damages under Code of Civil
Procedure, 598.
Il. Analysis.
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.)
Cross-Defendant also points to Code of Civil Procedure, 1048(b), stating that the law confers on this
Court broad authority to order a separate trial of any separate issue where doing so will avoid prejudice,
foster
convenience, or further expedition and economy.
Cross-Defendant argues that Klopping liability22, essentially liability for inverse condemnation, operates
as a threshold hurdle with the issue of the amount of damages submitted to the jury only upon a sufficient
showing
of liability by the condemnee." (Redevelopment Agency v. Contra Costa Theatre, Inc. (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d
73, 82). However, this is not always the case, as the parameters of Klopping are yet unsettled, and must be
developed and refined on a case-by-case basis. (City of Los Angeles v. Waller (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 766, 779).)
The Court will examine each ground for bifurcation listed by Cross-Defendant: (1) to advance the ends of
justice and thereby "avoid prejudice"; (2) to facilitate "the convenience of witnesses"; and (3) to support "the
economy and efficiency" and the "expedition" of this litigation.
A. Advance the ends of justice and avoid prejudice
First, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant will be prejudiced in several ways. If the trial were to be
bifurcated, Cross-Complainant would have to pay for an additional trial. For Cross-Complainant, whose only
source of income is the operation of the restaurant, it would be overburdensome to have to muster up the
funds to
pay for a separate trial.
Moreover, a key component of a bifurcated trial is to simplify the presentation of evidence. (Foreman &
Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888).) Here, the evidence that will be presented by Cross-
Complainant
at trial is the same for both the issue of Klopping liability and the issue of damages. Accordingly, the jury will
hear
Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page
2 of 5
aS
Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ae
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
= MINUTE ORDER
the same testimony whether the Court finds the damages are Klopping or another form of damages.
Therefore, a
bifurcated trial does not serve to simplify the presentation of evidence, nor will it prejudice a jury against the
CrassDefendant.
On the other hand, Cross-Defendant makes no specific showing that the proposed bifurcation would avoid
prejudice. The Court believes there would be no prejudice against the Cross-Defendant in presenting the
evidence
in the same proceeding. In fact, it may be more convenient for Cross-Defendant, as it would cost less money
and
it would only require bringing in its set of witnesses on one occasion rather than two.
B. Facilitate the Convenience of Witnesses
The same witnesses will be required to testify in both the Klopping liability issue, and the issue of
Klopping and condemnation damages. The witnesses will already be testifying in the eminent domain action,
so if
there were a separate trial for issues of liability preceding another trial for issues of damages for the inverse
condemnation, this would mean that witnesses would be repeating the same testimony three times in total.
In all
likelihood, the witnesses testimony will not be materially altered by the proposed bifurcation, so it would
save them
valuable time to have a singular trial for inverse condemnation.
As for expert witnesses, Cross-Defendant states that an upfront trial of liability delivers decisive answers
on which alleged precondemnation damages remain in play and thus for which damages the parties' expert
witnesses must formulate and exchange detailed statements in the course of discovery. It is not clear what
sorts
of precondemnation damages would remain in play and how this would impact an expert witness
testimony.
Without more details, the Court cannot determine how an initial trial on issues of liability would better
prepare an
expert witness. Instead, as with other witnesses, expert witnesses would also be required to testify twice, if
bifurcation were to occur.
C. Expediting the Litigation
Finally, the Court finds that bifurcation would not serve the interests of economy and efficiency in this
matter. On the contrary, having two separate trials for the inverse condemnation action would cause
excessive
costs and undue delay. The resolution of this case could already be prolonged, considering that there isa
separate trial for the eminent domain action and the inverse condemnation action. Splitting the inverse
condemnation action would further complicate the timeline of the case.
Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page
3 of 5
aS
Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ae
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
= MINUTE ORDER
22 Kloppingv City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39.
In fact, consolidating the inverse condemnation action and the eminent domain action could be more
appropriate and efficient. It is now settled that liability for unlawful precondemnation activities may be
considered
a part ofa single eminent domain proceeding. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
(1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965; 135 Cal.App.3d at 79.) Therefore, rather than bifurcation, the claim for inverse
condemnation can instead be considered part of the original eminent domain proceeding.
Cross-Defendant also states that the goal of Code of Civil Procedure, 598's bifurcation provision "
avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases
where
the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff." (Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.) However,
in
this case, if Cross-Complainant were to win on the issue of liability, a separate trial on the issue of damages
would
likely be very short. The damages portion of the case is not so complex and difficult to measure as to require
an
inordinate amount of the court s time.
Therefore, even if the trial were to be bifurcated, and the Cross-Complainant lost on the issue of liability,
the amount of time saved would be minimal. As such, the issue of damages could be presented at the same
time
as the issue of liability without wasting much, if any, of the court s time.
There is no evidence that hearing the issues in a single trial would result in prejudice against Plaintiff, nor
does it appear additional discovery will be necessary to litigate the crossclaim. Finally, bifurcating the trial
could
prejudice the jury or result in excessive costs and undue delay.
The Trial Judge has discretion to bifurcate issues of liability and damages and may exercise or decline to
exercise this discretion.
ll. Conclusion and Order.
The Plaintiffs Motion to bifurcate Defendant s crossclaim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Set for Trial Setting on 9/15/20 at 11:00 am in Department 20
Counsel to meet and confer on trial dates within 120 days from trial setting date.
Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page
4 of 5
ae 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SE MINUTE ORDER
Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page
5 of 5
Preview
aS Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ae COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA = MINUTE ORDER City of Santa Clara vs D.E. Il Restaurants, Inc. Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 19CV340508 Hearing Type: Motion: Bifurcate Date of Hearing: 07/14/2020 Comments: 13 Heard By: Manoukian, Socrates P Location Department 20 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Hientrang Tranthien Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - Mr. Conner and Ms. Yu appears for Plaintiff in person Mr Jenny appears for Defendant via Court Call Ms. Cammy Bowen is Official Reporter Pro Tempore for Plaintiff. Cour Reporter Form was completed (per reporter) but not in our system. Counsel indicated that he would make sure the form is filed with the Court. Court grants use of reporter. Tentative Ruling contested by Plaintiff Argument Heard Tentative Ruling Adapted. See below: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL OF CROSS-COMPLAINT I. Statement of Facts. Plaintiff City of Santa Clara (the City ) filed an eminent domain action against Defendant D.E. II Restaurants, Inc. ( D.E. Il Restaurants ) on January 2, 2019. On April 10, 2019, D.E. Il Restaurants filed a Cross-Complaint for Inverse Condemnation against the City. The Cross-Complaint demands precondemnation damages from the alleged deflation of the value of the business after the City sought to acquire D.E. Il Restaurant s lease to a City-owned building. The City wanted to acquire D.E. Il Restaurant s lease in order to make infrastructure improvements to the property for a mixed-use development known as City Place. On December 11, 2018, the City s City Council adopted a resolution declaring that the public interest and necessity required acquisition of the property. Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 1of 5 aS Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ae COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA = MINUTE ORDER As of the moment, pending the proposed bifurcation, there will be two trials conducted for the resolution of this case: (1) trial for the eminent domain action filed by the City; (2) trial for the inverse condemnation action filed by D.E. Il Restaurant. The City, as Cross-Defendant, now moves the Court to bifurcate the inverse condemnation action, with trial of the issue of liability preceding trial of the issue of damages under Code of Civil Procedure, 598. Il. Analysis. 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.) Cross-Defendant also points to Code of Civil Procedure, 1048(b), stating that the law confers on this Court broad authority to order a separate trial of any separate issue where doing so will avoid prejudice, foster convenience, or further expedition and economy. Cross-Defendant argues that Klopping liability22, essentially liability for inverse condemnation, operates as a threshold hurdle with the issue of the amount of damages submitted to the jury only upon a sufficient showing of liability by the condemnee." (Redevelopment Agency v. Contra Costa Theatre, Inc. (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 73, 82). However, this is not always the case, as the parameters of Klopping are yet unsettled, and must be developed and refined on a case-by-case basis. (City of Los Angeles v. Waller (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 766, 779).) The Court will examine each ground for bifurcation listed by Cross-Defendant: (1) to advance the ends of justice and thereby "avoid prejudice"; (2) to facilitate "the convenience of witnesses"; and (3) to support "the economy and efficiency" and the "expedition" of this litigation. A. Advance the ends of justice and avoid prejudice First, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant will be prejudiced in several ways. If the trial were to be bifurcated, Cross-Complainant would have to pay for an additional trial. For Cross-Complainant, whose only source of income is the operation of the restaurant, it would be overburdensome to have to muster up the funds to pay for a separate trial. Moreover, a key component of a bifurcated trial is to simplify the presentation of evidence. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888).) Here, the evidence that will be presented by Cross- Complainant at trial is the same for both the issue of Klopping liability and the issue of damages. Accordingly, the jury will hear Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 2 of 5 aS Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ae COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA = MINUTE ORDER the same testimony whether the Court finds the damages are Klopping or another form of damages. Therefore, a bifurcated trial does not serve to simplify the presentation of evidence, nor will it prejudice a jury against the CrassDefendant. On the other hand, Cross-Defendant makes no specific showing that the proposed bifurcation would avoid prejudice. The Court believes there would be no prejudice against the Cross-Defendant in presenting the evidence in the same proceeding. In fact, it may be more convenient for Cross-Defendant, as it would cost less money and it would only require bringing in its set of witnesses on one occasion rather than two. B. Facilitate the Convenience of Witnesses The same witnesses will be required to testify in both the Klopping liability issue, and the issue of Klopping and condemnation damages. The witnesses will already be testifying in the eminent domain action, so if there were a separate trial for issues of liability preceding another trial for issues of damages for the inverse condemnation, this would mean that witnesses would be repeating the same testimony three times in total. In all likelihood, the witnesses testimony will not be materially altered by the proposed bifurcation, so it would save them valuable time to have a singular trial for inverse condemnation. As for expert witnesses, Cross-Defendant states that an upfront trial of liability delivers decisive answers on which alleged precondemnation damages remain in play and thus for which damages the parties' expert witnesses must formulate and exchange detailed statements in the course of discovery. It is not clear what sorts of precondemnation damages would remain in play and how this would impact an expert witness testimony. Without more details, the Court cannot determine how an initial trial on issues of liability would better prepare an expert witness. Instead, as with other witnesses, expert witnesses would also be required to testify twice, if bifurcation were to occur. C. Expediting the Litigation Finally, the Court finds that bifurcation would not serve the interests of economy and efficiency in this matter. On the contrary, having two separate trials for the inverse condemnation action would cause excessive costs and undue delay. The resolution of this case could already be prolonged, considering that there isa separate trial for the eminent domain action and the inverse condemnation action. Splitting the inverse condemnation action would further complicate the timeline of the case. Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 3 of 5 aS Ge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ae COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA = MINUTE ORDER 22 Kloppingv City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39. In fact, consolidating the inverse condemnation action and the eminent domain action could be more appropriate and efficient. It is now settled that liability for unlawful precondemnation activities may be considered a part ofa single eminent domain proceeding. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 960, 965; 135 Cal.App.3d at 79.) Therefore, rather than bifurcation, the claim for inverse condemnation can instead be considered part of the original eminent domain proceeding. Cross-Defendant also states that the goal of Code of Civil Procedure, 598's bifurcation provision " avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff." (Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.) However, in this case, if Cross-Complainant were to win on the issue of liability, a separate trial on the issue of damages would likely be very short. The damages portion of the case is not so complex and difficult to measure as to require an inordinate amount of the court s time. Therefore, even if the trial were to be bifurcated, and the Cross-Complainant lost on the issue of liability, the amount of time saved would be minimal. As such, the issue of damages could be presented at the same time as the issue of liability without wasting much, if any, of the court s time. There is no evidence that hearing the issues in a single trial would result in prejudice against Plaintiff, nor does it appear additional discovery will be necessary to litigate the crossclaim. Finally, bifurcating the trial could prejudice the jury or result in excessive costs and undue delay. The Trial Judge has discretion to bifurcate issues of liability and damages and may exercise or decline to exercise this discretion. ll. Conclusion and Order. The Plaintiffs Motion to bifurcate Defendant s crossclaim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Set for Trial Setting on 9/15/20 at 11:00 am in Department 20 Counsel to meet and confer on trial dates within 120 days from trial setting date. Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 4 of 5 ae 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SE MINUTE ORDER Printed: 7/29/2020 07/14/2020 Motion: Bifurcate - 19CV340508 Page 5 of 5