FARZAD KOHANBASH VS. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC., ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC065792    Hearing Date: October 19, 2020    Dept: G

KOHANBASH v. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.

CASE NO.: VC065792

HEARING: 10/19/2020

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Defendant/Cross-Complainant SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.’s Motion for Bench Trial is DENIED.

II. Cross-Complainant DAN SAMARIN’s Motion for Bench Trial is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant KOHANBASH to give Notice.

SPECIALITY BAKING, INC. (“Specialty”) and DAN SAMARIN (“Samarin”) (collectively “Moving Parties”) separately move this Court to set the following claims for bench trial: (1) Specialty’s cross-claim for declaratory relief; (2) Samarin’s cross-claim for declaratory relief; and (3) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant FARZAD KOHANBASH’s (“Kohanbash”) unclean hands defense. The Moving Parties move to have the aforementioned equitable claims and issues heard first.

In Opposition, Kohanbash first argues that the Moving Parties are not entitled to a bench trial because Kohanbash is suing Specialty for the legal claim of fraud. Additionally, Kohanbash argues that Specialty and Samarin’s cross-claims for declaratory relief, and Kohanbash’s related defense of unclean hands are now moot where “Kohanbash has dismissed his cause of action for declaratory relief, has vacated the premises, and has said—in open court—that he is not seeking recovery of the subject property, thereby mooting any fight over title.” (Opp. 2:3-5.) Kohanbash also maintains that because he also asserts the legal issue of “fraud” as an affirmative defense to Specialty’s cross-action, that the declaratory relief claims must be tried by a jury.

In Reply, the Moving Parties separately argue that their cross-claims for declaratory relief are not moot because Kohanbash continues to maintain a right to title under the Option. The Moving Parties also maintain that Kohanbash’s affirmative defense of fraud is irrelevant to the instant Motions where the Moving Parities are only moving to set a bench trial as to Kohanbash’s unclean hands defense—not fraud.

In Sur-Reply (filed without leave of Court, but ultimately still considered), Kohanbash continues to maintain that the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief are moot. Consequently, since said claims for declaratory relief are moot, they should be dismissed, which would also moot Kohanbash’s defense of unclean hands, thus negating the need for a bench trial. Kohanbash also argues that “[a]ssuming, arguendo, that the claims over title somehow are not moot…the Court should let the jury go first or decide the entire action, as a matter of efficiency and to avoid treading on Plaintiff’s right to a jury.” (Sur-Reply 3:25-28.)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that it declines to render an opinion on the issue of whether the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief are “moot”. “Mootness” of the declaratory relief cross-claims is improperly considered at this junction, and beyond the scope of the instant Motions. The issue before the Court is whether the declaratory relief cross-claims and unclean hands defense should be determined via bench trial—prior to a jury trial that will determine the legal claims.

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (CCP §1048(b).) “In most instances, separate equitable and legal issues are ‘kept distinct and separate,’ with legal issues triable by a jury and equitable issues triable by the court.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.) There is no “bright line” rule with respect to the sequence of trying equitable and legal claims in a single action. It is well-established that trial courts may try equitable issues first in order to promote judicial economy. (Id. at 157.) “[I]f the court’s determination of those issues is also dispositive of the legal issues, nothing further remains to be tried by a jury.” (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671.) However, legal issues may also be tried before equitable ones. “The order of trial, in mixed action with equitable and legal issues, has great significance because the first factfinder may bind the second when determining factual issues common to the equitable and legal issues.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156-157.) “ ‘[W]here the legal issues are tried first, the judge cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equitable relief inconsistent with the jury’s findings.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 159.)

The major objective of separate/bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence. (See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.) The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to show that hearing the equitable claims in a bench trial, first, would serve the interests of judicial economy. Rather, this Court could benefit from the factual findings of the jury in deciding, on the legal issues, whether Specialty Baking engaged in fraud. The issue of whether Specialty Baking engaged in fraud is relevant to the adjudication of the Moving Parties’ claims for declaratory relief, and Kohanbash’s defense of unclean hands. The Motions are DENIED. The Court finds that it would be more efficient for the jury trial to proceed first, followed by the Court’s ruling on the equitable claims.

Case Number: VC065792    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: SEG

FARZAD KOHANBASH ET AL v. SPECIALTY BAKING

CASE NO.:

HEARING: 12/2/19

TENTATIVE ORDER