Motion to Bifurcate
(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F46) August 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT F46 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Call the Courtroom Assistant at 818-576-8430 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the date prior to the hearing, or inform the Courtroom Assistant upon checking in.
Case Number: 23STCV28456 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: F46 The Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to consideration of bifurcation during the pretrial proceedings.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 1048(b) to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases. The other defendants have filed notice that they do not oppose the motion. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 authorizes the Court, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted, to order that the trial of an issue or part of an issue precede the trial of another issue. Section 1048(b) similarly authorizes separate trials in furtherance of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. Whether bifurcation is appropriate, and the manner in which the issues should be sequenced for trial, are matters committed to the Court's discretion.
The Court has considered Defendant's specific showing. Defendant represents that the liability portion of the trial would be relatively brief and would involve approximately three to five experts, whereas the damages presentation could require a week or more and involve numerous treating physicians and retained experts. Defendant estimates that the damages phase could involve approximately 20 to 25 experts among all parties. Defendant therefore contends that a defense verdict on liability could eliminate the need for a substantial and resource-intensive damages presentation.
The Court recognizes that these circumstances present a legitimate basis for considering bifurcation and that bifurcation could result in substantial savings of trial time and resources if Defendants prevail on liability. The Court does not reject Defendant's request on its merits, nor does the Court apply a categorical preference for unified trials. Rather, the Court concludes that the determination is more appropriately made during the pretrial proceedings, before the jury is called, when the Court will be in a better position to evaluate the actual structure of the trial.
At that time, the Court can consider the anticipated testimony and witness sequencing, the degree of overlap between liability, causation, and damages evidence, the effect of the Court's rulings on motions in limine and preliminary evidentiary matters, the practical consequences of conducting separate phases, and whether bifurcation will in fact promote the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, and the economy and efficiency of the trial. Defendant's present showing that the damages phase is expected to be substantially longer and more expert-intensive than the liability phase is relevant to that determination, but the Court concludes that the exercise of its discretion will be better informed after the remaining pretrial issues have been developed and addressed.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will permit the issue of bifurcation to be renewed and considered during the pretrial proceedings, before the jury is called, after the Court has addressed the motions in limine and other preliminary evidentiary and trial-management matters relevant to the appropriate sequencing of the trial.
Case Number: 25CHCV03843 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: F46 Dept. F-46 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Case Number: 25CHCV03843 DEFENDANTS TIGRAN ANEIAN AND CAPITAL READY MIX, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND/OR TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION
Motion filed on April 24, 2026. MOVING PARTIES: Tigran Aneian and Capital Ready Mix, Inc. RESPONDING PARTIES: Gilberto Soto Aburto, Soto Ready Mix, Inc., and Soto Concrete, Inc. NOTICE: OK. RELIEF REQUESTED: Moving Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiffs to arbitrate before JAMS all claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint against all Defendants and staying this action pending arbitration. RULING: Granted in part.
BACKGROUND
On October 29, 2025, Gilberto Soto Aburto (Plaintiff Soto), Soto Ready Mix, Inc. (Plaintiff SRM), and Soto Concrete, Inc. (Plaintiff SCI) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed the Complaint against Capital Ready Mix, Inc. (Defendant CRM) and Tigran Aneian (Defendant Aneian) (collectively, Moving Defendants). On April 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC), adding BKG Group Management, LLC (Defendant BKG). The FAC alleges causes of action for breach of contract, specific performance, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, conversion, and declaratory relief.
Moving Defendants filed this motion on April 24, 2026, supported by the declarations of Aneian and Robert F. Kull. Plaintiffs filed a conditional non-opposition and the supporting declaration of James F. Warren IV on July 6, 2026. Moving Defendants filed a reply and supplemental declaration of Kull on July 10, 2026. On July 17, 2026, the Court continued the hearing for supplemental briefing. On August 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition, a request for judicial notice, and the declarations of Soto, Jonathan Lopez, and Warren. Moving Defendants filed a supplemental reply, the supplemental declaration of Aneian, the supplemental declaration of Kull, and evidentiary objections on August 7, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a response to the evidentiary objections on August 10, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARD
Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties' dispute.¿(Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) A party moving to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-357.) A party seeking to compel arbitration meets their initial burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by attaching a copy to the motion. (Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219 (Condee).)
"California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration." (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) "This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute." (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in