Motion to Trifurcate Trial; Motion to Preclude Redundant Evidence
RG19021124: Alweiss VS City of Oakland 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate and Preclude Redundant evidence CRS# A- 19021124-001 in Department 512
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Elizabeth Riles
On defendant City of Oakland (Defendant or City) Motion to Trifurcate Trial and to Preclude Redundant Evidence in Future Phases of Trial, the Court ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR. The Court allowed the parties an additional opportunity to brief relevant issues on Citys Motion to Preclude, and the parties did so. The Court provides the following substantive Tentative Ruling to direct discussions at the hearing.
Citys Motion to Trifurcate Trial, i.e., to bifurcate Phase 2 of the trial is DENIED.
Citys Motion to Preclude Redundant Evidence by any party that City caused or contributed to landslides, water created instability, was responsible for the mid-hill grade beams, or was responsible for the Lot 51 sewer pipe is GRANTED.
After the prior owner of Lot 50 defaulted on his property tax obligations, Plaintiff purchased Lot 50 at a foreclosure sale in 2017. Lot 50 is an undeveloped hillside in a residential neighborhood in the Oakland hills. Lot 68 is the property immediately uphill from Lot 50 and is also undeveloped.
Following the Phase 1 bench trial to determine Citys liability to Plaintiff for inverse condemnation, the Court found that Plaintiff proved his claims for inverse condemnation solely as to one of several theories that Plaintiff advanced, specifically that the City is liable for sewage leaks from an adjacent Lot 51 sewer pipe, but the Court found that Plaintiffs evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of production to prove that the City was responsible for (1) landslides affecting Lot 50 in 1951, 1952, 1953 and 2006 or any current water-created instability to Lot 50; or (2) that Plaintiff had standing to seek damages for contamination to Lot 50 caused by the Middle Hill sewer pipe in the 1950s.
Further, the Court found that the City was not responsible for alleged damages caused by Middle Hill grade beams because the evidence demonstrates that the grade beams were built by a private developer and are the property of Alweiss neighbor. They are not City assets. (p. 4 of 6.) Plaintiff bore the burden of proof with respect to causation in the Phase I inverse condemnation trial, and Plaintiff will bear the burden of proof with respect to causation in the Phase II tort claims trial.
MOTION TO TRIFURCATE
City now seeks to bifurcate the second phase of the trial into Phase 2 and Phase 3, with one jury to hear evidence and award inverse condemnation damages in Phase 2 and a second jury to hear the tort claims against City in Phase 3. City contends that it will be irreversibly prejudiced if a second bifurcation is not granted, based on a "strong likelihood" that a single jury asked to determine both inverse condemnation damages and also deciding liability for other causes of action, will speculate about or second-guess the Court's liability determinations for inverse RG19021124: Alweiss VS City of Oakland 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate and Preclude Redundant evidence CRS# A- 19021124-001 in Department 512 condemnation.
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?”
City also appears to argue that the jury in a single trial will be confused by the differences in the measure of damages on inverse condemnation from those on the tort claims.
Plaintiff in Opposition contends that City should be estopped from seeking a second bifurcation where it previously agreed to the initial two-phase bifurcation in 2023. Plaintiff also argues that conducting two jury trials instead of one will be extremely costly and inconvenient and will not be conducive to expedition or economy. Plaintiff declares that he incurred expert witness fees of $140,000 and attorney's fees of $180,000 on the Phase I bench trial and that two jury trials mean twice the costs and possibly up to another year of litigation to conduct the proposed Phase 3 jury trial. The Case has been pending since 2019, and no trial date for the second jury phase of the trial has been set. Plaintiff also argues that City's purported concerns can be addressed through appropriate jury instructions.
The Court finds Plaintiffs second argument regarding cost and delay more persuasive and agrees that appropriate jury instructions would avoid confusion or possible prejudice to City.
Wherefore, the Court DENIES Citys Motion to Trifurcate.
MOTION TO PRECLUDE REDUNDANT EVIDENCE
Citys Motion to Preclude Redundant Evidence regarding causation is GRANTED. Neither party at trial may present evidence regarding the causation issues already determined by the Courts Final Statement of Decision for the Phase I trial.
Issues adjudicated in earlier phases of a bifurcated trial are binding in later phases of that trial and need not be relitigated. No other rule is possible, or bifurcation of trial issues would create duplication, thus subverting the procedure's goal of efficiency. Duplication of effort is the very opposite of the purpose of bifurcated trials. (Orange County Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 252, 359; Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 31.)
Reliant Life Shares, supra, supports the proposition that this rule holds where the court makes prior findings of fact on equitable claims in a bifurcated trial, even where the second phase of the bifurcated trial will present legal claims for the parties are entitled to be heard by a jury.
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection that this Court lacks the authority to rule on this motion, rather than requiring City to bring this motion as a motion in limine. The bifurcated trial in this action has already commenced, and Plaintiff cannot show that he has been prejudiced by having more time than he would have to respond to a motion in limine brought three court days before commencement of the Phase II trial.
Plaintiffs Opposition argument that the Courts Final Statement of Decision did not make findings of fact regarding causation is in error. The Court found that Plaintiff, despite a full and
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG19021124: Alweiss VS City of Oakland 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate and Preclude Redundant evidence CRS# A- 19021124-001 in Department 512 fair opportunity to do so, could not prove City caused or contributed to landslides that allegedly damaged the Property, that City caused or contributed to water instability at the Property, or was responsible for the mid-hill beam. Under Orange County Water Dist. and Reliant Life Shares, supra, Plaintiff may not seek to relitigate these issues in the Phase II trial. Thus, any evidence regarding causation would be a misuse of the Courts limited trial resources and the jurys time to hear.
The Courts Statement of Decision found that City was responsible for the Lot 51 sewer pipe that allegedly caused damage to the Property. Thus, City may not seek to present evidence in the Phase II jury trial that it was not responsible for the Lot 51 sewer pipe.
Plaintiffs other arguments lack merit. Plaintiffs arguments about res judicata and collateral estoppel are a red herring. Citys moving brief on the present motion never mentions res judicata or collateral estoppel. Instead, City cited the Orange County Water Dist. and Reliant Life Shares decisions. The Court requested further briefing regarding the res judicata effect of the Courts final Statement of Decision in its initial tentative ruling for the first hearing on this motion, by which the Court meant the arguments that the Final Statement of Decision in the first phase of a bifurcated trial bars re-litigation of issues decided conclusively therein. Citys initial and supplemental arguments have been sufficiently clear for Plaintiff to respond to them on the merits, and Plaintiff has had adequate time to so respond.
The Court finds no merit to Plaintiffs contention that the final Statement of Decision did not address any landslides on or water instability at the Property after 2017 and that Plaintiff is therefore entitled to present evidence that City is responsible for such events occurring after 2017. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity after five years of litigation to present evidence that show that City caused or contributed to landslides or water instability at the Property. If Plaintiff elected not to present relevant evidence on these issues in the Phase I trial, he cannot present such evidence in Phase II as a means to re-litigate issues conclusively decided in Phase I.
Plaintiffs argument that the issues sought to be precluded in Phase I are not identical to those decided in Phase I lack merit. Causation of Plaintiffs alleged damages for which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both his equitable inverse condemnation and legal torts claims are the same. The Court finds no substantive difference between substantial factor causation for purposes of torts claims from the Courts finding that Plaintiffs evidence did not show that City caused or contributed to the landslides or water instability.
Although it will certainly be appropriate to provide the jury in Phase II with an instruction as to the Phase I Final Statement of Decision rulings, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiffs claim that the Court may not exclude redundant, unnecessary evidence regarding factual matters conclusively determined in Phase I and may instead, only provide the jury with a jury instruction. Neither Reliant Life Shares, supra, or Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1994) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, so hold.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG19021124: Alweiss VS City of Oakland 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate and Preclude Redundant evidence CRS# A- 19021124-001 in Department 512 The Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections to Citys Reply Brief.