Finley Mathieu vs Carin Craig, MD et al

Case Number

22CV00092

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Bifurcation

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of Sutter Health to bifurcate trial is granted. The professional negligence issues will be tried first, and the declaratory relief action will follow.

Background:

This action commenced on January 10, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Finley Mathieu (Mathieu), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Sarka Holeckova (Holeckova), against defendants Carin Craig, M.D. (Dr. Craig), Sansum Clinic (Sansum), and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (Cottage Hospital), alleging one causes of action labeled medical malpractice negligence. (Compl., ¶ 10(f) & p. 4.) By way of the complaint, Mathieu alleges that defendants failed to monitor, observe, control, and evaluate Mathieu during and after his birth and delivery on November 22, 2019. (Id. at ¶ GN-1.) Mathieu further alleges that, as a result, he suffered substantial pain, suffering, and permanent impairment. (Ibid.)

On February 24, 2022, Cottage Hospital filed its answer to the complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting nine affirmative defenses.

On March 11, 2022, Dr. Craig and Sansum Clinic filed their respective answers to the complaint, each generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-two affirmative defenses.

On February 28, 2023, Mathieu filed a request for dismissal of the complaint as to Cottage Hospital only, without prejudice.

On March 17, 2023, Mathieu filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Alejandro R. Soffici, M.D. (Dr. Soffici) for the fictitious name Doe 1. Dr. Soffici filed an answer to the complaint on May 31, 2023, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirteen affirmative defenses.

On November 1, 2024, Mathieu, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Holeckova, filed a complaint in Case No. 24CV06198 against defendants Sansum Clinic, Sansum Santa Barbara Medical Group Santa Barbara, Cottage Hospital, Sutter Health (Sutter), and Sutter Health Greater Central Coast, for Medical Malpractice arising from the same events as alleged in Case No. 22CV00092.

Relevant to the present motion, the complaint in Case No. 24CV06198 alleges that Sutter “bought, assumed and acquired Defendants SANSUM CLINIC, SANSUM SANTA BARBARA MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., SANSUM MEDICAL GROUP SANTA BARBARA, and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and now owns manages, assumes, operates, controls assets and [is] obligated to pay the liabilities of [those defendants].” (Compl., ¶ 9.) The cause of action against Sutter is for declaratory relief.

On April 1, 2025, Sutter answered the complaint with a general denial and 10 affirmative defenses.

On May 2, 2025, this action was consolidated with Case No. 24CV06198, with this case designated as the lead case.

On August 22, 2025, Sutter filed the present motion to bifurcate requesting that the declaratory relief claim against Sutter be tried, if at all, after the underlying professional negligence claim has been tried and decided.

Mathieu opposes the motion.

Analysis:
 

Sutter moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 598 arguing that the ends of justice and the economy and efficiency of handling this action would be promoted by bifurcation.

“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, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof, and the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)

‘ “Code of Civil Procedure section 598 was adopted in 1963 as the result of Judicial Council recommendations. Its objective is avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff. [Citations.]” ’ (Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.)

Sutter argues that if the other defendants obtain a defense verdict on the question of negligence related to the birth of Mathieu, there will be no need to determine the declaratory relief cause of action against Sutter.

The court agrees with Sutter’s arguments. The underlying medical malpractice action will likely involve multiple experts and several days of testimony regarding the care and treatment of Mathieu during and after his birth. There is no claim against Sutter that it was involved in the alleged malpractice, just that Sutter is responsible for any damages resulting from the alleged malpractice. Combining the issues involved in medical malpractice with the potential responsibility for damages would likely cause the jurors confusion. Further, and without ruling on the issue at this time, because the allegations against Sutter lead the court to believe that the basis of the claim is based on contract interpretation, Mathieu’s declaratory relief cause of action against Sutter appears to be based on equitable issues and, as such, would be for the court to decide rather than a jury.

The motion will be granted.