This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 08:05:40 (UTC).

LORINDA CHOU VS DEER USA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/07/2017 LORINDA CHOU filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DEER USA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2649

  • Filing Date:

    11/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHOU LORINDA

Defendants and Respondents

ZHANG CHUN

DEER USA INC

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

PETALE ALEXANDER J. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

MORENO RICHARD C.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/1/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS, DEER USA, INC. AND CHUN ZHANG

8/20/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS, DEER USA, INC. AND CHUN ZHANG

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

11/7/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

11/7/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Stipulation and Order ((Proposed) Order and Stipulation to continue Trial, FSC and relatd discovery dates, P.I. Courts only); Filed by LORINDA CHOU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS, DEER USA, INC. AND CHUN ZHANG

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service (of Summons); Filed by LORINDA CHOU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • Answer; Filed by DEER USA INC (Defendant); CHUN ZHANG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by LORINDA CHOU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by LORINDA CHOU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682649    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 29

Chou v. Deer USA, Inc.

Motion to Bifurcate Trial, filed by Defendants Deer USA, Inc. and Chun Zhang, 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, the Court concludes that judicial economy will not be served by ordering separate trials on liability and damages. In the master calendar context, ordering bifurcation presents logistical challenges for the Court and results in judicial inefficiency. From the Court’s perspective, it is more efficient to try liability and damages in a single trial, even when the liability issues are relatively simple and damages issues complex.

Defendants have not presented any facts that would justify departure from the general rule here. Defendants’ arguments regarding prejudice would apply in virtually every personal injury case. Any risk of prejudice can be ameliorated with a jury instruction guarding against bias.

More significantly, there are factual issues that are integral to both liability and damages. The events leading up to Plaintiff’s fall are obviously relevant to liability and are also relevant to the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and whether the injuries were caused by the alleged negligence. Plaintiff has identified several witnesses who would have to testify in both the liability and damages phases. 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.