You need to state the facts that pertain to your particular situation. Do NOT just use the wording here unless it definitely applies to the situation. The California Courts have ruled that once the moving party meets their burden the burden shifts to the opposing party to present compelling reasons why the issue of marital status should not be bifurcation.
Superior Court Cal. Society will be little concerned if the parties engage in property litigation of however long duration; it will be much concerned if two people are forced to remain legally bound to one another when this status can do nothing but engender additional bitterness and unhappiness.
Superior Court 54 Cal. On the other hand, a spouse opposing bifurcation must present compelling reasons for denial. Superior Court, supra, Cal. In fact one California Court of Appeal has stated in a published case that in dissolution proceedings, bifurcation is "encouraged. Only use section C below if you are requesting bifurcation of any other issues such as date of separation, valuation of property, etc.
Rules of Court, rule 5. As previously mentioned, one California Court of Appeal has stated in a published case that in dissolution proceedings, bifurcation is "encouraged. I have personal knowledge of the foregoing, and if called upon to testify as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth in this declaration.
Total views 6, On Slideshare 0. From embeds 0. Number of embeds Downloads 0. Shares 0. Comments 0. Likes 3. You just clipped your first slide! Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. Every client believes they have the winning hand at the beginning of litigation. However, after commencing an action and enduring paper discovery, depositions, and motion practice — a process that can take years — a client may begin to have doubts about the strength of their case.
Such doubts can arise even on the eve of trial, after a considerable amount of time and money has been spent preparing for court. Rather than wait for such a feeling to occur, a client would do well to consider the advantages of bifurcating their case. Bifurcation is the splitting of a case into two separate trials. Generally, a civil lawsuit can be naturally divided into two major issues for a trier of fact, such as a judge or a jury, to decide: liability and damages.
In a bifurcated case, the issues of liability and damages are decided separately. The trier of fact will only decide the issue of liability at the first trial. If the defendant is not found to be liable, then there will be no damages trial. However, if the defendant is found to be liable, then a second trial will be scheduled to decide damages.
The parties will now move on to the issue of damages, which will be its own separate trial, usually with a separate trier of fact. At first glance, parties may be concerned about spending money and resources on two trials instead of one. General Motors Corporation , Pa. It is important to avoid piecemeal litigation, particularly in personal injury cases, where issues of liability and damages are typically intertwined. General Motors Corp.
Bifurcation is inappropriate when witnesses who testify to liability would also testify to damages. Hybrids, Inc. Doebler , U. In the present case, both Plaintiff and Ms. Because of the interwoven nature of liability and damage issues in this case, bifurcation is inappropriate. Because depositions of medical experts have already been taken, bifurcation is inappropriate. One main justification for bifurcation is to avoid the expense of preparing the damages portion of the case prior to a liability determination.
Stevenson v. There was no reason to wait to file the motion until after the expense of taking this trial testimony was incurred. Because significant expenses for preparation of the damages portion of the case have already been incurred, bifurcation is inapprorpriate.
0コメント