Motion_to_bifurcateMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 3, 2014Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/17/2020 10:16 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Brian Takahashi (SBN: 146505) Marion V. Mauch (SBN: 253672) Theodore Dorenkamp III (SBN: 277004) Garrett B. Stanton (SBN: 324775) 970 West 190th Street, Suite 700 Torrance, California 90502 Tel: (310) 768-3068 Fax: (310) 719-1019 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT JOSE RUELAS, CASE NO.: BC532131 Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Mel Red Recana Department: 45 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RESERVATION ID: 544341740296 DATE: January 12, 2021 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: 45 V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. N r N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N r Action Filed: January 3, 2014 Trial: TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that January 12, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department 45 of the above entitled court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”) hereby moves the Court for an order bifurcating trial—if Ford’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied—as follows: 22805962v3 1 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N =~ N N N D ND ND ND ND ND D N D N A a m m y m y m y m n n o © ~N oO oa A W N ~~ O O © 0 0 N N oO Oo bb Ww ND - 1. Ford requests that the issue of whether Plaintiff's First through Fifth causes of action based on fraud are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations be addressed first in a bench trial and bifurcated from the jury trial on the merits. Such bifurcation is authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 597 and will further judicial economy and efficiency without any prejudice to Plaintiff; and 2. Ford further invokes its statutory right to an order bifurcating punitive damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3295(d). Specifically, any reference, comment, argument and/or evidence related to Ford's profits or financial condition is precluded during the liability phase of the trial, and is not admissible unless and until the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that Ford is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with California Civil Code section 3294. This Motion is based upon this notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the records and pleadings on file herein, and upon such other evidence as the Court may consider. DATED: July 17, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP oy AP den Brian Takahashi Marion V. Mauch Theodore Dorenkamp lll Garrett B. Stanton Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY 22805962v3 2 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES lL INTRODUCTION This automotive warranty case involves a 2006 Ford F-250 pickup truck, purchased almost 14 years ago, alleged to have defects with respect to the truck’s 6.0-liter Navistar diesel engine. Plaintiff Jose Ruelas’s (“Plaintiff’) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) asserts various fraud-based claims, including misrepresentation and concealment, as well as violation of the Song-Beverly Act. In addition to relief under the Song Beverly Act including civil penalties, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”). Recently, Ford filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) as to Plaintiff's fraud-based claims asserting various arguments including that Plaintiff's fraud- based claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The hearing on Ford's MSA was set by the Court for October 28, 2020—the first available hearing date. If this Court finds a triable issue of fact as to the statute of limitations defense and denies Ford’s MSA, Ford hereby requests the Court bifurcate—actually “trifurcate”—trial as follows: 1. Ford requests that the triable issue of fact identified by this court concerning whether Plaintiff's first through fifth causes of action are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations be addressed first in a bench trial and bifurcated from the jury trial on the merits pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 597. Such bifurcation will further judicial economy and efficiency without any prejudice to Plaintiff. 2. Ford further invokes its statutory right to an order bifurcating punitive damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3295(d). Specifically, any reference, comment, argument and/or evidence related to Ford's profits or financial condition during the liability phase of the trial is not admissible unless and until the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that Ford is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with California Civil Code section 3294. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth more fully below, Ford respectfully requests this Court grant the instant motion for bifurcation in its entirety. 22805962v3 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ Il. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Basic Facts and Operative Complaint On September 1, 2006, Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Ford F-250 pickup truck from Galpin Motors, Inc. The truck was accompanied with an express warranty for five years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurred first, covering its six-liter Navistar diesel engine. Ford's summary adjudication motion (MSA) explains that Plaintiff was on inquiry notice of facts that might support a claim no later than February 1, 2007, yet Plaintiff waited to file his initial Complaint in the lawsuit until January 3, 2014. Plaintiffs operative Second Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action against Ford: (1) Fraud in the Inducement- Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Fraud in the Inducement — Concealment; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Fraud in the Performance of Contract — Intentional Misrepresentation; (5) Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and (6) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The basis for Plaintiff's First through Fifth causes of action (“fraud-based claims”) is that Ford allegedly misrepresented and concealed inherent engine defects that caused oil and antifreeze leaks and turbo issues. As to his warranty claim, Plaintiff alleges that Ford failed to conform the truck’s defective six-liter Navistar diesel engine to the applicable warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts. B. Ford’s Motion for Summary Adjudication On May 22, 2020, Ford moved for summary adjudication, arguing in part that Plaintiff's fraud-based claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. As set forth in the MSA, it is undisputed that Plaintiff's fraud-based claims are facially untimely, so Plaintiff bears the burden of identifying competent evidence admissible at trial that would raise a triable issue of fact as to whether tolling excuses his late filing. Any alleged tolling under the delayed discovery doctrine would be contrary to Plaintiff's testimony under oath that “[{jhe moment that | bought the truck, after, let's say, about five months [(February 1, 2007)], | started having problems with a leak, leaking oil. The problem never went away. Problems with the turbo. Also problems with the...antifreezing, leak of antifreeze”, yet he waited nearly seven years to sue Ford. Moreover, Ford's MSA explains why, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot properly 22805962v3 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ invoke class action or equitable tolling during the pendency of the Custom Underground, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Burns v. Navistar Inc. and Ford Motor Co., or Adams v. Ford Motor Co. class actions. The hearing on Ford's MSA has been set by the Court for the first-available hearing date, October 28, 2020. lll. ARGUMENT A. IF FORD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS DENIED, FORD REQUESTS BIFURCATION ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Code of Civil Procedure section 597 authorizes this Court to bifurcate the trial of an action to try special defenses, including the statute of limitations defense, before any other issue in the case. Section 597 states, in pertinent part: When the answer pleads that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, . . . the court may, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, proceed to the trial of the special defense or defenses before the trial of any other issue in the case, and if the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury, upon any special defense so tried (other than the defense of another action pending) is in favor of the defendant pleading the same, judgment for the defendant shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action shall be had unless that judgment shall be reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated. A bifurcation motion pursuant to section 597 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made at any time, including at the time of trial. (Barr v. ACandS, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1038, 1044 n.2 [request for bifurcation made by motion in limine at the time of trial], review denied Dec. 23, 1997, disapproved of on other grounds by Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127.) A statute of limitations defense is a common matter for bifurcation. The purpose bifurcating the statute of limitations defense is to avoid wasting time and money caused by the trial of issues that may be rendered moot. (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135 [upholding trial court's bifurcation of statute of limitations issue in negligence and fraud action].) Here, the three-year statute of limitations applicable to fraud governs Plaintiff's 22805962v3 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ First, Second, and Fourth fraud-based causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d).) Plaintiff's Third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 339.1) The Fifth cause of action for CLRA claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc. (C.D. CAL. 2010) 735 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1140; Code. Civ. Proc. § 1783.) A cause of action generally accrues, and the periods noted above generally begin to run, at “the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 797, 806.) In certain circumstances, however, a court-made gloss on the statutory limit, known as the delayed discovery rule, postpones accrual until the earlier of two dates: when the plaintiff actually discovers, or a reasonable person would have a basis for learning, facts that give rise to a suspicion that a cause of action might exist. (/d. at 807.) At that point, the plaintiff may not have all the relevant facts in hand, but the statutes of limitations at issue here provide a multi- year period during which the plaintiff is expected to investigate facts and explore whether a lawsuit should be filed. Here, Plaintiff's admissions demonstrate his notice of a need to look into possible claims, and the undisputed repair history allows this court to ascertain that a reasonable person would similarly have been on inquiry notice too early to render Plaintiff's lawsuit timely under the delayed discovery rule. To the extent this court nonetheless believes there is a triable issue of fact precluding summary adjudication, it will be a relatively straightforward task to demonstrate, in a bifurcated proceeding, that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Litigating the statute of limitations defense on each of Plaintiff's causes of action before proceeding to issues of liability, causation, and damages will serve to promote judicial economy and efficiency. Even if it is only as to some rather than all causes of action, a decision in favor of Ford on the statute of limitations will limit the length of an expensive jury trial. Moreover, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff to have the statute of limitations defense 22805962v3 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ decided first. The statute of limitations defense will necessarily be litigated at trial one way or another. Ford is merely asking the Court to impose some efficiency on the order of the trial. In short, it makes little sense to proceed with a full-blown trial on the substantive issues of the claims if a truncated bench trial of the statute of limitations defense could render such issues moot. And even if the statute of limitations defense is resolved in favor of Plaintiff for each separate cause of action, efficiency is still upheld because trial can then proceed to the jury on substantive issues without encumbrance. The issue of whether Plaintiffs causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations would properly be tried by the Court. Clearly, Plaintiff's Complaint filed almost eight years after he purchased the truck is facially time-barred, so the only potential issues in dispute are those pertaining to Plaintiff's equitable defenses to Ford's affirmative statute of limitations defense. “[l]n a statute of limitations defense, the court would seem to us to be in a better position to determine when a cause of action accrued than a jury, even though there are factual underpinnings to this finding.” (Windsor Square Homeowners Assn. v. Citation Homes (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 547, 558.) “All the authority we have discovered and exhaustively described, assumes...that such factual issues are naturally tried to the court. Indeed we think this is proper.” (/d.) Moreover, equitable matters, including Plaintiffs assertion of fraudulent concealment as to tolling of the statute of limitations, equitable estoppel, class action tolling, and equitable tolling, are properly decided by the court, even if there are disputed issues of fact. (Hopkins v. Kedzierski (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 736, 755.) “[O]n equitable causes of action, the judge is the proper fact finder.” (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.) Accordingly, Ford’s motion should therefore be granted, and the issue of a whether Plaintiff's fraud-based claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations should be tried in an initial statute of limitations phase before a jury trial on the merits. Logic, common sense, and the promotion of judicial efficiency and economy support this result. 111 22805962v3 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N = N N N D ND ND ND DD D D D NN A m a m m y m y m y m n n o oo N N oO a bh Ww W O N =~ O O © 0 0 N o oa ~ ~ O D N ~~ B. ADDITIONALLY, IF FORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS DENIED, FORD REQUESTS BIFURCATION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 3295(b). Under section 3295(d), Ford is entitled to have the question of the amount of punitive damages tried separately from the phase in which liability is determined. “A request under section 3295(d) is essentially a motion in limine....” (Las Palmas Assoc. v. Las Palmas Ctr. Assoc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1241.) Bifurcation under section 3295(d) protects a defendant from the premature, prejudicial admission of evidence related to its profits and financial condition. Under section 3295(d), “[t]he 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 [by clear and convincing evidence] that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with [California Civil Code] Section 3294.” (Civ. Code section 3295(d) [emphasis added].) In addition to the bifurcation procedure outlined above, section 3295(d) prohibits the admission of a defendant’s financial condition and profits during the first phase of trial. Itis not until the amount phase of trial that “[e]vidence 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” in the liability phase of trial. (Civ. Code section 3295(d) [emphasis added].) Therefore, evidence of Ford's profits and financial condition is irrelevant and inadmissible until the punitive amount phase of the trial, if at all. During the liability phase of trial, [b]oth the pauper and the millionaire are entitled to be treated fairly before the trier of fact. ... ‘Justice is to be accorded to rich and poor alike, and a deliberate attempt by counsel to appeal to social or economic prejudices of the jury, including the wealth or poverty of the litigants, is misconduct where the asserted wealth or poverty is not relevant to the issues of the case.” (Las Palmas Assoc., supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at 1242.) Thus, Ford is entitled to a protective order against the premature admission 22805962v3 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N =~ N N N D ND ND ND ND ND D N D N A a m m y m y m y m n n o © ~N oO oa A W N ~~ O O © 0 0 N N oO Oo bb Ww ND - of such irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence pursuant to section 3295(a). IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Ford’s motion to bifurcate on both statute of limitations and punitive damages should be granted. DATED: July 17, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Brian Takahashi Marion V. Mauch Theodore Dorenkamp lll Garrett B. Stanton Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY 22805962v3 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES oO © oO o N N oo a ~~ W N =~ N N N D ND ND ND ND ND D N D N A a m m y m y m y m n n o © ~N oO oa A W N ~~ O O © 0 0 N N oO Oo bb Ww ND - PROOF OF SERVICE CCP 1013A(3) (Revised 5/1/88) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES | am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 970 West 190th Street, Suite 700, Torrance, CA 90502. On, July 17, 2020, | served the foregoing documents described as FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on all interested parties in this action as follows: Lauren A. Ungs, Esq. Attorneys for PLAINTIFF JOSE RUELAS KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fax: (310) 552-7973 laurena@knightlaw.com emailservice@knightlaw.com Bryan C. Altman, Esq. Attorneys for PLAINTIFF JOSE RUELAS THE ALTMAN LAW GROUP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Tel: (310) 277-8481 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fax: (310) 277-8483 bryan@altmanlawgroup.net c.urner@altmanlawgroup.net irene@altmanlawgroup.net c.ermac@altmanlawgroup.net (X) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1010.6.(b)(6): Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, | caused the documents to be sent to the addresses persons at the electronic notification listed above. Executed on July 17, 2020 at Whittier, California. (X) (State) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 22805962v3 10 FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation JOSE RUELAS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY Case Number: BC532131 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) Date Filed: 2014-01-03 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 45 Reservation Case Name: JOSE RUELAS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY Type: Motion to Bifurcate Filing Party: Ford Motor Company (Defendant) Date/Time: 01/12/2021 8:30 AM Reservation ID: 544341740296 Fees Description Motion to Bifurcate Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: XXXX9919 24 Print Receipt | ++ Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Case Number: BC532131 Status: RESERVED Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 45 Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-8IHUNPJERXRGJYLXL Fee 60.00 1.65 Type: Visa Authorization: 063538 Amount 60.00 1.65 $61.65
