Mackovski vs. Costco Wholesale

TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPARTMENT N17

Judge Craig L. Griffin

Date: August 31, 2026 Time: 2:00 PM

If you are submitting to the tentative, please call the Clerk at (657) 622-5617.

Appearances may be IN PERSON or through ZOOM. If appearing by ZOOM, go to https://www.occourts.org/media-relations/civil.html and click on the yellow box that reads: “CLICK HERE TO APPEAR FOR THE ONLINE CHECK-IN/ZOOM PILOT PROGRAM.” Call the department with any questions.

COURT REPORTERS: Official Court Reporters (i.e. Court Reporters employed by the Court) are NOT typically provided for law and motion matters in this department. If a party desires a record of a law and motion proceeding, it will be the party’s responsibility to provide a court reporter. Parties must comply with the Court’s policy on the use of privately retained court reporters which can be found at:

• Civil Court Reporter Pooling; and

• For additional information, please see the Court’s website at Court Reporter Interpreter Services for additional information regarding the availability of Court Reporters.

PUBLIC ACCESS: The public may attend the ZOOM session by telephone. Call the department for a call-in number.

# 1 Mackovski vs. Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Costco Bifurcation (“Motion”) is GRANTED. Wholesale Defendant requests an order bifurcating trial into a liability phase and subsequent damages phase. Code of Civil Procedure, sections 598 & 1048(b) provide several criterial for the court to examine in reaching a determination whether to bifurcate trial, and trial of issues/causes of action. These include: (i) Elimination of unnecessary trials; (ii) The convenience of witnesses; (iii) The ends of justice; (iv) Economy and efficiency of handling the litigation; and (v) Avoidance of prejudice

Defendant did not provide any arguments as to the first or third issues. The remaining issues support bifurcation.

As to the convenience of witnesses, most of the identified witnesses appear to be medical providers who would opine on plaintiff Aleksandar Mackovski (“Plaintiff”) damages, they would not opine on liability, nor is the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries necessary to decide whether Defendant is liability. (Kesner v. Superior Ct. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 1158.)

Although again not argued by Defendant, the arguments Plaintiff made under the ends of justice issue support bifurcation as the arguments indicate Plaintiff hopes to appeal to juror emotion on the determination of liability. Avoidance of the emotional issue is why Defendant sees to bifurcate the matter. There is also likely no delay or need to empanel a new jury if liability on Defendant’s part is found as the same jury can be used in the damages phase.

Regarding economy and efficiency of litigation, if liability is not found then the issue of damages will not need to be presented saving all time. If Defendant is found liable, then it may promote settlement. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 875, 888 FN. 8.)

As noted, the bifurcation would assist in avoiding prejudice as the jurors would not be privy to Plaintiff’s injuries and would instead determine liability based upon the law.

As more of the factors support bifurcation that do not, and as Plaintiff has not identified any real valid prejudice, the Motion is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice. 2 Bui v. Elliot Cont. 3 Alois v. O/C Volkswagen A.G. 4 Romero v. Plaintiff Sofia E. Romero’s unopposed motion to set aside and vacate Melalma the order voiding the complaint is GRANTED. Apartments, LLC Government Code section 88634 provides that if an application for a fee waiver is denied, the applicant must pay the filing fees within 10 days after the clerk gives notice of the denial, unless the applicant submits a new application or requests a hearing. If the applicant does not pay on time, the clerk must void the papers that were filed without payment. (Gov. Code, § 68634, subd. (g).) Plaintiff produced some evidence she did not receive the clerk’s notice of the order denying the fee waiver. (Declaration of Sofia E. Romero ¶ 6; Declaration of Les V. Amponsah ¶ 5.)

Defendant did not oppose the motion, thereby conceding the merits. (Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424; Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288.)

The motion is therefore GRANTED and the Complaint filed on March 6, 2026 shall be reinstated as of the date of its original filing upon Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee. 5 Pichika vs. A) Demurrer Provident Trust Group, Defendant Provident Trust Group FBO Ira J. Boren, I.R.A.’s LLC (“Defendant” for this ruling) demurrer to plaintiff Jayalakshmi Pichika’s (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.