On 04/05/2018 JESSICA NICOLE ARAGON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DENNISE A BANUELOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Other.
****0927
04/05/2018
Other
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
ARAGON JESSICA NICOLE
BANUELOS JAVIER
DELAVEGA SOCORRO
BANUELOS DENNISE A.
DOES 1-30
SIMON BRAD M.
ORTIZ-BELJAJEV NEYLEEN SARA
SIMON BRAD MICHAEL
SCHENKMAN MARK A. ESQ.
GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH
1/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE ISSUE...)
11/5/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
10/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MIL NO 7
10/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MIL NO 10
10/22/2019: Statement of the Case
10/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/16/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION 3.57 DECLARATION
10/16/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1
9/3/2019: Substitution of Attorney
8/27/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 EXCLUDING EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
8/27/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 EXCLUDING ALL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT OFFERED TO DEMONIZE DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
8/27/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM SUGGESTING A SPECIFIC MONETARY AMOUNT OF NON- ECONOMIC DAMAGES ("ANCHORING"); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
9/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
9/17/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
6/14/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
8/2/2018: Notice of Change of Address -
5/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
5/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Conditional Settleme...) of 01/28/2020); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Conditional Settleme...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate (Issues of Liability and Damages, Filed by the Defendants) - Held - Motion Denied
DocketReceipt; Filed by Dennise A. Banuelos (Defendant); Javier Banuelos (Defendant); Socorro Delavega (Defendant)
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Dennise A. Banuelos (Defendant); Javier Banuelos (Defendant); Socorro Delavega (Defendant)
DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jessica Nicole Aragon (Plaintiff)
DocketSUMMONS
Case Number: BC700927 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: 29
Aragon v. Banuelos, et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Issues of Liability and Damages is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the Court may order that the trial of any issue shall precede the trial of any other issue “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.” Here, Defendant has not shown that the efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted by bifurcation. Among other things, if the Court were to order bifurcation, Plaintiff and her expert would have to testify twice. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was driving the car at the time of the accident. Plaintiff intends to offer testimony regarding the location and extent of injuries to contest that point. Such testimony is relevant to both liability and damages. Where facts essential to proof of liability are also essential to proof of damages, bifurcation is inappropriate. Cook v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 832, 834.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC700927 Hearing Date: November 06, 2019 Dept: 2
Aragon v. Banuelos, et al.
Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages by Defendants is DENIED without prejudice to Defendants raising this issue for the trial court to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the trial court rules on motions in limine. The court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case.
The court recognizes that Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule. Defendants may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed in any way to bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion.
Defendants properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. See Cal Code Civil Procedure §598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial). However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” Id.
On the facts of this case and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation. While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience.
Accordingly, the court denies this motion without prejudice. Defendants are ordered to give notice.