Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline

There is presently a trial date set in this matter for August 3, 2026.

Discussion

Through this motion, Smartrise requests the Court bifurcate the following: (1) the claims brought by Smartrise against Hoang; (2) the PAGA claim brought by Meline against Smartrise through his Cross-Complaint; (3) the claims asserted by Alpha against Smartrise through its Cross-Complaint; (4) the claims brought by Arney against Smartrise through Arney’s Complaint in Intervention; (5) the claims asserted by Parra and Ezzeddine, related to their rights as shareholders, against Smartrise, Zogbi, and Bouchez.

Smartrise’s arguments appear to be primarily based, at least in part, upon the impending trial date, and the current state of discovery. The moving papers state:

Trial is set to begin in this action on August 3, 2026—a trial date set due to the five-year deadline on many of Smartrise’s asserted claims that is expiring on September 24, 2026. Because of the five-year rule, trial must proceed before that deadline even though Smartrise, as of the time of this filing, is only just now on the precipice of receiving the first substantive discovery responses and document production from Defendants Alpha Elevator Control, Inc. (“Alpha”), Thomas Parra, Ali Ezzeddine, Brent Meline, Larry Hoang, and Intervenor Plaintiff Shannon Arney.

However, there is no reason that the claims asserted against Hoang, and for the claims asserted by Meline, Alpha, Parra, Ezzeddine, and Arney, need to proceed to trial at this time. Indeed, these claims are subject to entirely separate five-year deadlines and need not be tried until 2029. Thus, there is no need for trial to proceed on these claims when Smartrise is only now set to receive discovery responses. Because of its inability to complete the necessary discovery, Smartrise will be severely prejudiced if trial proceeds on August 3, 2026 on the claims for which severance is sought. (Mov.

MPA, pp. 1:27-2:10.)

In opposition, Alpha argues that while Smartrise seeks to “sever every claim and crossclaim from the consolidated trial set to begin on August 3 with the exception of Smartrise’s affirmative claims against Alpha, Thomas Parra, Ali Ezzeddine, and Brent Meline,” to do so would, “undermine judicial economy, create a substantial risk of inconsistent rulings, and significantly prejudice the Alpha Defendants.” (Opp’n, p. 4:2-7.) Alpha maintains that each of the claims that Smartrise seeks to bifurcate “arise out of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate in Department 8A

the same series of transactions, from the same agreements, and involve the same parties.” (Id. at p. 4:9-10.)

In reply, Smartrise maintains that bifurcation is warranted here – “[f]orcing a premature trial on those claims will cause demonstrable prejudice to Smartrise, which has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on those claims.” (Reply, p. 10:6-7.) Smartrise further argues that there is risk of jury confusion, from trying numerous distinct legal theories simultaneously, such as trade secret misappropriation, PAGA penalties, shareholder rights, and unfair business practices, and further, judicial economy is not served by forcing all claims into “a single, unwieldy trial.” (Id. at p. 10:8- 22.)

Code of Civil Procedures section 1048(b) provides:

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 of Civil Procedure section 598 provides, in part, the following:

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 . . . make an order . . . that the trial or any issue or any part therefor shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . . The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time . . .

Based on the arguments presented, the Court does not find that bifurcation would be in furtherance convenience, economy, efficiency, or prevent prejudice. The claims, and the related factual allegations, would seem to suggest the contrary – that this consolidated action should proceed as one trial. Smartrise’s motion is DENIED as to these claims.

PAGA Claim Brought by Meline Against Smartrise

However, with regard to the PAGA claim, the Court notes that because an aggrieved employee's action under PAGA functions as a substitute for an action by the government itself, a judgment is binding not only on the plaintiff but also on government agencies and any other aggrieved employee not a party to the proceeding. Thus,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate in Department 8A

nonparty employees cannot sue to recover additional civil penalties for the same Labor Code violations but may sue for damages or other remedies for the same violations. (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.) With this, the Court acknowledges that some of the findings in this matter could be binding on the PAGA representative action. Further, any trial on the PAGA action would necessitate a bench trial, and which would take place after the other claims are tried to a jury.

With these considerations in mind, Smartrise’s motion is GRANTED as to PAGA claim brought by Meline.

Disposition

Smartrise’s motion for bifurcation is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as further set forth herein.

Alpha’s requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-70; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear in person or by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporterservices-transcripts. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate in Department 8A

Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.