Sophie Yeh v. The Harker School, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 6/26/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh vs The Motion to Sever the Cross Complaint Harker School et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV430597 Marybeth Lakso et al Motion: Tax Cost vs Gary Lynn, MD et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINE 3 24CV445767 Midland Credit Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment Management Inc. vs Gloria Martinez Good Cause Appearing, the Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment and dismiss the instant case without prejudice is granted.

Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing. LINE 4 24CV445982 JPMorgan Chase Bank, OFF CALENDAR N.A. vs Fatima Luna Esquivel LINE 5 25CV465047 Discover Bank vs Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rafael Jauregui-Luna The Court has received no opposition from Defendant. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.

LINE 6 25CV475161 Darlene Garza et al vs Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration Ford Motor Company et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 6 LINE 7 25CV478294 Viking Insurance Hearing: Demurrer Company of Wisconsin, a corporation vs Joe Off Calendar per dismissal filed 6/15/26 Bento et al

Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Sophie Yeh v. The Harker School, et al. Case No.: 23CV418929

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEVER

Plaintiff moves to sever Defendant The Harker School’s (“THS”) cross-complaint against Commercial Tree Care (“CTC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1048 and 598. The motion is denied as to severance, but granted in part as to bifurcation of trial issues.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b), authorizes the Court to order separate trials of claims or issues “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.” Section 598 similarly permits the Court to order the sequence of trial issues where necessary to promote convenience, judicial economy, or the ends of justice. These provisions confer broad discretion to structure trial proceedings involving overlapping claims. (See Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266; Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496; Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591.)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint and THS’s cross-complaint arise from a single occurrence—the March 21, 2023 tree failure incident—and involve overlapping factual questions concerning the condition of the subject tree, inspection practices, and the scope and adequacy of Commercial Tree Care’s involvement. The Court previously permitted the filing of the crosscomplaint and continued trial, recognizing that the claims arise from common operative facts and that a single proceeding would promote efficiency and avoid duplication of testimony.

The Court finds that complete severance is not warranted. The claims share substantial factual overlap, including witnesses and evidence concerning inspection, maintenance, and tree risk assessment. Severance would result in duplication of evidence, inconsistent presentation of overlapping issues, and inefficiency contrary to the purposes of sections 1048 and 598.

However, the Court is persuaded that limited bifurcation is appropriate to reduce the risk of juror confusion and to ensure orderly presentation of issues. Although evidence of CTC’s conduct will necessarily be relevant to Plaintiff’s negligence theory against THS, the distinct nature of THS’s indemnity, contribution, and contract-based claims against CTC warrants separation of those issues from Plaintiff’s claims for trial management purposes.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 598:

1. Phase One: Trial of Plaintiff’s claims against THS, including liability and damages; and 2. Phase Two (if necessary): Trial of THS’s cross-claims against CTC for indemnity, contribution, breach of contract, negligence, and related relief.

This structure allows Plaintiff’s claims to be presented without the added complexity of defendant-versus-defendant allocation and contract issues, while preserving THS’s ability to fully litigate its cross-claims in a subsequent phase if required.

The Court finds this approach best balances judicial economy, avoidance of prejudice, and orderly presentation of issues to the jury.

The motion is therefore DENIED as to severance and GRANTED IN PART as to bifurcation in the manner stated above.

Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary EFS-020 Form, within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -