Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/03/2019 at 10:07:07 (UTC).

LARRY W. ALBRIGHT, ET AL., VS CHARLES G. CALE, EL AL.,

Case Summary

On 11/16/2017 LARRY W ALBRIGHT, filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CHARLES G CALE, EL AL . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE and BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8395

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LISA HART COLE

BOBBI TILLMON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

ALBRIGHT LARRY W.

LARRY AND HELEN ALBRIGHT LIVING TRUST

ALBRIGHT HELEN R.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

JERRY'S TREE SERVICE

CALE CHARLES G.

CALE JESSIE R.

Others

CHUCK & TSONG LLP

CHUCK & TSOONG LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

PERLMAN DEBORAH

PERLMAN DEBORAH KATE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

VOSS COOK & THEL LLP

MONDIA MARIE B.

DAMON JAMES GRAHAM III

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW E. WEBB IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

11/1/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW E. WEBB IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONFORMING THE FILING DATE OF DEFS' APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS TO THE ATTEMPTED PROCESSING DATE; MEMO OF P&AS, DECLS. OF JAMES DAMON AND DENYSE YOLKE

11/12/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONFORMING THE FILING DATE OF DEFS' APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS TO THE ATTEMPTED PROCESSING DATE; MEMO OF P&AS, DECLS. OF JAMES DAMON AND DENYSE YOLKE

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO EXPARTE APPLICATION OF DEFS FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE AND HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS TO DEFS FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SETS TWO; M

11/14/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO EXPARTE APPLICATION OF DEFS FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE AND HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS TO DEFS FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SETS TWO; M

Request for Judicial Notice

12/2/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION OF RAYMOND SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

8/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF RAYMOND SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROBERTO BENITEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

8/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROBERTO BENITEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Motion for Summary Adjudication - PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

8/29/2019: Motion for Summary Adjudication - PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

4/26/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

4/30/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Case Management Statement

6/27/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-25 00:00:00

9/25/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-25 00:00:00

Summons

11/16/2017: Summons

Case Management Statement -

9/13/2018: Case Management Statement -

Case Management Statement -

8/27/2018: Case Management Statement -

Notice of Ruling -

7/16/2018: Notice of Ruling -

Notice - Of Association of Counsel

7/18/2018: Notice - Of Association of Counsel

Memorandum of Points & Authorities -

8/20/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities -

Other - - SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/20/2018: Other - - SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/16/2020
  • Hearing04/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion - Other For A Nonjury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • Hearing01/27/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • Hearing01/17/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearing12/03/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing on Motion for Nonjury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Advance Hearing on Motion for Nonjury Trial); Filed by HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketMotion for Order (for Nonjury Trial); Filed by HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (of Defendants/Cross-Complainants for an Order Shortening Time for Notice and Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses by Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants to Defendants' Request for Production of Documents, Set Two) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (of Defendants/Cross-Complainants for an Order Shortening Time for Notice and Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses by Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
130 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by LARRY W. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by LARRY W. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by LARRY W. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); LARRY AND HELEN ALBRIGHT LIVING TRUST (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by LARRY W. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); LARRY AND HELEN ALBRIGHT LIVING TRUST (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by LARRY W. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff); HELEN R. ALBRIGHT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128395    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Albright ,et al. v. Cale, et al.

Case No.: SC128395

Hearing: 6-23-20

Calendar #: 5

___________

SUBJECT: MOTION TO BIFURCATE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Charles G. Cale and Jessie R. Cale and Jerry’s Tree Service

RESP. PARTY: None as of 5-7-20 (Due on 6-10-20. Plaintiffs Larry W. Albright and Helen R. Albright, et al.)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED pursuant to CC §3295(d).

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” CC §3295(d).

CC §3295(d) imposes evidentiary restrictions on disclosure of a defendant’s financial information to minimize potential prejudice to the defense in front of a jury. “As an evidentiary restriction, section 3295(d) requires a court, upon application of any defendant, to bifurcate a trial so that the trier of fact is not presented with evidence of the defendant's wealth and profits until after the issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression, or fraud have been resolved against the defendant. Bifurcation minimizes potential prejudice by preventing jurors from learning of a defendant's ‘deep pockets’ before they determine these threshold issues.” Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777–778.

The Court is required to grant Defendants’ request to bifurcate the punitive damages claim from the liability phase of the trial and to preclude presentation any evidence of Defendants’ financial condition until the trier of fact awards Plaintiffs actual damages and finds Defendants guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, LR 3.25(f)(2) does not require that motions to bifurcate be heard only at the FSC. LR 3.25(f)(2) merely requires that any motions to bifurcate must, at a minimum, be served with sufficient statutory time to be heard at the final status conference.

Plaintiffs’ request to bifurcate the equitable claim for quiet title from the legal claim for trespass cannot be raised in opposition to Defendants’ motion to bifurcate punitive damages. Plaintiffs must file their own motion to bifurcate.

Plaintiffs argue that evidence of Defendants’ financial condition cannot be excluded from presentation at the liability phase if relevant to issues of liability. The Court agrees that the order bifurcating the punitive damages phase from the liability phase of the trial does not preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence of Defendants’ financial condition to the extent it is relevant and otherwise admissible to some issue other than the punitive damages award. See e.g. Rawnsley v. Sup.Ct. (Pioneer Theaters) (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91 (CC §3295(c) restrictions on pretrial discovery does not bar pretrial discovery where defendant's finances are directly related to the substantive claim involved).

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer James G Damon