Plaintiff v. Astrid Beigel

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. N) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT N LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiff Jackson's motion to instruct the referee is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff Jackson to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiff moves for leave to instruct the referee regarding the verification of rent paying tenants, and removal of any non-rent paying tenants. Plaintiff represents the necessity of the motion in to order accurately determine the property valuation.

Legal Standard

"(a) The court shall appoint a referee to divide or sell the property as ordered by the court. [P.] (b) The court may: ... (2) Instruct the referee." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 873.010.)

Appraisal and Accounting

Plaintiff alleges the rent payment information and eviction of non-paying occupants will render the required accounting in every partition more accurate. Valuation is at least in part a function of income for the subject four-unit complex, and Plaintiff demands all tenants pay rent controlled market rent. Plaintiff therefore seeks the eviction of Defendant as a non-paying tenant, and either an increase of rent to market rate or eviction for Defendant's son, Brian, who is also occupying one of the other three units.

Defendant in opposition represents the motion is now moot given all residents are now paying rent and a property management firm in fact collects all rents. No reply appears on file. The opposition represents payment of rent by Defendant and Brian, but the opposition lacks actual proof of any payment of rent by Defendant. According to Plaintiff, the rent paid by the son is also well below the rent controlled maximum, which appears undisputed by Defendant. [Declaration of Keith Landrum.]

The position of Defendant appears marginally supported at best. Regardless, the payment of full rents in no way appears to prevent the appraiser from ostensibly determining the property valuation. Plaintiff establishes a base market rate for Brian's unit, and can presumably also determine the value of Defendant's occupied unit, if a differing rate applies. Whether or not Defendant pays rent or sufficient rent in no way appears to reflect on the ability or inability to determine the property valuation. The property is already receiving low ball offers, which were rejected. The parties and the referee apparently understand at least a certain minimum level of valuation given the rejection of the initial offers.

Further, Plaintiff also appears to seek a summary eviction of Defendant and Brian. The motion lacks any basis of authority for this position. The interlocutory judgment in no way provides the referee with a grant of authority providing to evict non-paying tenants. Given the property is not partitioned and both parties are co-owners, the authority to evict Defendant and Brian remains insufficiently addressed. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 ["When [a party] fails to raise a point or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived"].)

The sole purpose of the referee is to establish valuation and determine potential equitable adjustments upon sale. The motion lacks a sufficiently supported position establishing the necessity of further instruction for determining valuation, or a basis for eviction. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice.

Case Number: 24SMCV02528 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Astrid Beigel's motion to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases is DENIED. Defendant Beigel to give notice.

REASONING

Defendant Beigel moves for bifurcation on a position of no liability due to Plaintiff being illegally present in the intersection outside the crosswalk, and failing to yield to traffic with vehicles moving on a green light. Requiring trial on the damages phase is both inefficient and potentially prejudicial.

Plaintiff in opposition challenges any attempts to adjudicate liability based on an inadmissible traffic report. Plaintiff also maintains that any testimony from Plaintiff and other witnesses about the accident, will inevitably lead to testimony involving the subsequent impacts to Plaintiff following the collision. Bifurcation will therefore not sufficiently reduce potential jury bias. Beigel in reply engages in qualitative challenges regarding liability, and reiterates the purpose of the bifurcation motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 states in part: "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 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 part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5."

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1048, subd. (b).)

Liability and Damages

The court finds bifurcation will not yield greater efficiency. With the qualitative and traffic report admissibility issues acknowledged, the court still finds the possibility that at least some of the witnesses may testify as to both liability and damages. Should Beigel not prevail on the liability phase, a bifurcated trial will likely require reintroduction of certain evidence, and extend the trial simply based on the bifurcation structure itself. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.)

On prejudice, any issues under Evidence Code sections 352 can be addressed in motions in limine and jury instructions. (Evid. Code, Sec. 352.) The prejudice arguments otherwise insufficiently support the requested relief. The motion is denied without prejudice. Trial remains set for September 28, 2026.

Case Number: 24SMCV04665 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Vanir Construction Management, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The alternative Motions for Summary Adjudication and for Judgment on the Pleadings are denied as moot.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 437c, subdivision (c) states, "[i]n determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.437c, subd. (c).)

Pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (q): In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review. For the purpose of judicial economy, the Court rules only on the objections to evidence it has deemed material to the disposition of the instant Motion.

Cross-Defendant Vanir objects to paragraphs 7-15 of the Declaration of Kevin Tyrell, a licensed architect and Partner at QDG from 2014 to 2024, submitted in support of QDG's Opposition. Vanir's objections are SUSTAINED in their entirety. Vanir also objects to parts of QDG's Additional Material Facts. To the extent that these objections are not related to the declaration of Kevin Tyrell, the Court declines to rule on those objections as they are not material to the disposition of the Motion.

The FACC asserts the following causes of action against Cross-Defendant Vanir: