On 02/20/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by RACHEL KEMPF against JOSHUA THOMAS NOLAN in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
****4605
02/20/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
KEMPF RACHEL
DOES 1 TO 15
NOLAN JOSHUA THOMAS
6/1/2018: Answer
2/22/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
2/22/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury
6/7/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person
6/27/2019: Association of Attorney
5/15/2018: DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE
4/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
3/12/2018: DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE
2/20/2018: SUMMONS
2/20/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (IME) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party
Association of Attorney; Filed by Rachel Kempf (Plaintiff)
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Joshua Thomas Nolan (Defendant)
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Joshua Thomas Nolan (Defendant)
Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Joshua Thomas Nolan (Defendant)
Answer
Answer; Filed by Joshua Thomas Nolan (Defendant)
Declaration; Filed by Rachel Kempf (Plaintiff)
DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Rachel Kempf (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE
Declaration; Filed by Rachel Kempf (Plaintiff)
Complaint; Filed by Rachel Kempf (Plaintiff)
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
SUMMONS
Case Number: BC694605 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION
TO BIFURCATE
On
February 20, 2018, Plaintiff Rachel Kempf (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendant Joshua Thomas Nolan (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out
of a January 8, 2018 automobile versus pedestrian accident. Defendant was driving and Plaintiff was a
pedestrian. Defendant moves to bifurcate
issues of liability and damages at trial. “The
court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the
economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on
motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the
close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference in
cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no
later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any
part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any party thereof in
the case . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §
598.) Where trial of the issue of
liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or
parts thereof and the decision of the court or jury is in favor of the allegedly
liable party, judgment in favor of that party shall be entered and no trial of
other issues in the action against that party will be had. (Ibid.) If the decision of the court or jury on the
issue of liability is against the party allegedly liable, the trial of the
other issues shall be had before the same or another jury as ordered by the
court. (Ibid.) “Section
598 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the trial court power to order ‘that
the trial of the issue of liability shall precede the trial of any other issue
in the case . . . ‘Its objective is avoidance of the waste of time and money
caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the
liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.’ [Citation.]” (Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d
381, 385.) However, the court cannot
order the separate trial of an issue of liability when because of the nature of
the case it is necessary to prove the plaintiff’s damages in order to establish
that liability. (Cook v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 832, 834.) Defendant
argues the liability stage will consist of seven witnesses and take no more
than three days of trial. These
witnesses include the officers who investigated the accident and accident
reconstruction experts. During the
damages phase, Plaintiff’s extensive alleged injuries will be at issue,
including gastrointestinal perforation, multiple fractures, radio nerve palsy,
and pleural effusion. Expert witnesses
will include medical billing experts and orthopedic specialists from both
parties, as well as Plaintiff’s numerous treating physicians. Defendant estimates the testimony for the
injuries and damages phase will take four days. Plaintiff
argues she will be prejudiced by bifurcation as her injuries limit her ability
to offer full liability testimony at trial. Plaintiff has a substantially limited recollection of the incident at
issue due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiff argues she should be able to put on
evidence explaining her memory limitations resulting from physical
injuries. On reply, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff has not designated any experts who could testify regarding her
alleged memory limitations. Even
though today is the Final Status Conference, the parties have not filed any
trial documents. Without a witness list
and an exhibit list, the Court cannot determine how long the trial will be and
what witnesses will be necessary. For
example, the parties should be able to avoid witnesses on the medical bills
unless there is an actual dispute about the authenticity and business records
nature of the bills. To
prove her negligence claim, Plaintiff will need to show that Defendant was negligent,
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendant’s “negligence was a substantial factor in
causing [Plaintiff’s] harm.” (CACI No.
400.) Thus, Plaintiff will need to prove
that the accident and Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
her harm and therefore, evidence as to her injuries will be required as part of
the liability phase. Although Plaintiff
did not designate an expert to testify about her memory loss, she has knowledge
of her memory and memory loss. Bifurcation
would not lead to economy and efficiency given this overlap in evidence. The Motion to bifurcate is DENIED. Moving
party to give notice. Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions
provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.