JOHN RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665690    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: O

After hearing, Defendant City of Irwindale’s motion to trifurcate is DENIED.

Defendant City of Irwindale (“Defendant”) moves to trifurcate issues pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048.  On March 9, 2020, Defendant notified the Court that it had settled its matter.  Nevertheless, Defendant City of Baldwin Park submitted a joinder of the motion and, thus, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.  Under section 1048:

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 of 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).)

Defendant requests the Court to trifurcate the issues of (1) design immunity, (2) liability, and (3) damages.  According to Defendant, the issue of design immunity should be heard as a Court trial first before the case goes in front of a jury because if the Court decides that design immunity applies in this case, there would be no need for the jury to decide liability or damages.  The Court understands that one of the elements of the design immunity affirmative defense concerns “reasonableness,” which is a question of law under Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66.  However, there is an open question as to whether the first two prongs of the design immunity affirmative defense should be heard by the jury.  At the hearing, Plaintiff John Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Baldwin Park concurred that the “reasonableness” prong of the design immunity affirmative defense should be ruled on by the Court while a jury should decide the first two prongs.

As a result, the Court DENIES the motion to have a bench trial prior to a jury trial on the design immunity issue.

Moreover, the Court finds that trifurcation or bifurcation in this case will not achieve judicial economy.  Under Defendant’s scenario, at least two different juries would be empaneled, and there is no indication that the witnesses testifying at the first trial regarding design immunity will not be required to testify again at the second (or third) trial with regard to the issues of liability and damages.  Even if the witnesses were completely independent of each other concerning liability and damages, this is not an efficient way to proceed and Defendant does not provide sufficient justification for such an approach in this case. 

The Court DENIES the motion for separate trials on the issues of liability and damages.

Case Number: BC665690    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant Tony Lai’s motion for order determining good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Defendant Tony Lai (“Defendant”) moves for good faith determination of his settlement with Plaintiff John Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Pursuant to section 877.6, in an action in which two or more parties are alleged to be joint-tortfeasors, they are entitled to a hearing concerning the good faith issue of a settlement. A determination of good faith requires that the court calculate a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodard-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (Ibid.)

A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (CCP § 877.6(c).)  

If the nonsettling defendants do not oppose the motion on the good faith issue, a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Sup.Ct. (Boyter) (1987) 192 CA3d 1251, 1261.)

The motion and its accompanying declarations set forth grounds for good faith determination. Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to settle Plaintiff’s claim for $25,000.00. The Court finds the settlement was made in good faith. There is no opposition. The Motion is GRANTED.