What is a Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

Recent Rulings on Motion to Bifurcate / Trifurcate

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

Proc., § 1048.) Plaintiffs request that this action be consolidated with Vazquez, et al. v. Inner Circle Investments, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV18598) (Vazquez II). The court previously deemed the two cases related on June 15, 2020, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Related Cases. The Frontier Defendants contend generally that Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend and/or to consolidate should be denied because both requests are made in bad faith. (Opposition, 4-9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BUCIUMAN V. PIVODA

Plaintiff seeks an order consolidating the unlawful detainer (Case No. 20-01131120) with the instant action (Case No. 2019-01111433), pursuant to CCP Section 1048. Rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court governs motions to consolidate.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

Under CCP section 1048 (a): “(a) 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.” This section grants discretion to the trial court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

Defendant Colorado’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ELIZABETH POLITO VS JOSHUA DOLAND, ET AL.

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.) Based on the facts of the cases, the Court finds that consolidation of the two actions for purposes of expert discovery and trial would avoid duplicative efforts to determine the questions of causation and damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

STOUT VS JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA [EFILE]

Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice. The Court finds that the moving party has not made a showing that "the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby". [CCP 598]

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STOUT VS JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA [EFILE]

Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice. The Court finds that the moving party has not made a showing that "the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby". [CCP 598]

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EADS AVENUE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VS PETER RIX

The court finds Rix-Li fail to establish that fees relating to the multiple substitutions of attorney, fees related to Rix-Li's motion to bifurcate that was later withdrawn by Rix-Li and fees relating to last minute courtesy copies as reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion against the award of these fees as costs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ELIZABETH POLITO VS DEBBY YUAN ET AL

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.) Based on the facts of the cases, the Court finds that consolidation of the two actions for purposes of expert discovery and trial would avoid duplicative efforts to determine the questions of causation and damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

MARC A. LAROCQUE VS. CHRISTINE LAROCQUE FRANZ, ET AL

Motions to consolidate are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BORSH VS SALTZMAN

After the Court reopened, plaintiffs filed a motion to bifurcate the quiet title claims from the other claims, and try them as a phase one bench trial within 120 days. ROA 16-17. Following full briefing and a hearing on July 31, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for trial preference and bifurcation. ROA 28. The phase 1 bench trial is set for December 4, 2020. ROA 26.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

US REAL ESTATE CREDIT HOLDINGS III-A, LP VS SCOTT EISNER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STUART RUBIN CHILDREN'S TRUST, ET AL.

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.” CCP §403.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

ALBERT TOFANYAN VS ALBERTO LOPEZ CARBAJAL ET AL

Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) On September 4, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking the court to consolidate additional cases that were not identified in the moving papers. The court file does not reflect that any notice of related case has been filed in this action regarding those cases and thus those cases have not yet been deemed related to this one.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

ALBERT TOFANYAN VS ALBERTO LOPEZ CARBAJAL ET AL

Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) On September 4, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking the court to consolidate additional cases that were not identified in the moving papers. The court file does not reflect that any notice of related case has been filed in this action regarding those cases and thus those cases have not yet been deemed related to this one.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

HEADGEPATH VS. BELL

Proc., § 1048(b); Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888 [footnote omitted].) Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

CORTES V. GOODWIN

Explanation: Motion to Consolidate Cases Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), "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." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

PACHECO VS DESCANSO MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

Status Conference Defendant’s motion to bifurcate and sequence discovery is denied. Defendant seeks an order bifurcating the issue of plaintiff’s standing as an aggrieved employee from the remainder of the PAGA action. Defendant also seeks to sequence discovery so that only discovery on the issue of standing should be permitted initially. The court may order bifurcation “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice” or if it is “conducive to expedition and economy.” (CCP §1048(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JEFF CLEVELAND, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

To the contrary, ‘a court must take into account the ‘overall equities’ of the case in ruling on a motion to bifurcate.’” Rodin, at 721, quotation citation omitted. California courts have recognized that bifurcation is proper where liability is a simple matter while damages require testimony from multiple witnesses (Trickey, supra), or where only a small fraction of the evidence would be repeated, and the trial court had determined the ends of justice would be served by bifurcation. Kaiser Steel Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FEODOROV VS. BARTOLI

The defendant’s suggestion that the trial be bifurcated is denied without prejudice to the defendant’s right to file a noticed motion to bifurcate. Analysis: A moving party's evidentiary burden in a motion for relief from forfeiture of the right to a jury trial is slight, but it is not non-existent.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

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

Based on the foregoing, Defendant B.H.’s motion to bifurcate and/or sever is granted. (3) Waiver of Right to Jury Defendant B.H. notes in this motion by means of a footnote that Plaintiffs waived their right to a jury by failing to timely post jury fees in this matter, and failing to seek relief from that waiver after Defendant filed and served a formal objection.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

LODI VINTNERS, INC. V. RABBIT RIDGE WINE SALES, INC. DBA RABBIT RIDGE

The motion to bifurcate is denied. The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

GABRIEL RAMIREZ ET AL VS ASUNCION GARCIA ET AL

The motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice. Ruling The demurrers are sustained. The motions to extend judgment to nonparties are moot. The motion to strike is moot. The motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice. Next dates: Notice:

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL FRILOT VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Hearing Date: September 3, 2020 Moving Parties: Defendants City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach Police Department, and Suja Lowenthal Responding Party: Plaintiff Michael Frilot Motion to Bifurcate Plaintiff’s Mandamus Proceedings and POBR Claims from Plaintiff’s Labor Code Section 1102.5 Cause of Action The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED as to bifurcation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PAUL RICHARD V. LADERA PLAZA, ET AL.

However, Plaintiff’s opposition argues that the Court should also order that trial of this cross-complaint will be severed from the trial of this action between Plaintiff and GMC, set to commence on February 22, 2021, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

MICHAEL FRILOT VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Hearing Date: September 3, 2020 Moving Parties: Defendants City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach Police Department, and Suja Lowenthal Responding Party: Plaintiff Michael Frilot Motion to Bifurcate Plaintiff’s Mandamus Proceedings and POBR Claims from Plaintiff’s Labor Code Section 1102.5 Cause of Action The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED as to bifurcation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 113     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.