Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV29428, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29428    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff Mikhael Dean, by and through his guardian ad litem Eddie Guerrero (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint alleging injuries due to a dog bite on the premises owned by Defendants Moda Apartments, Moda at Monrovia Station, and Legacy Partners, LLC (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an answer on April 7, 2022.

Plaintiff applies on an ex parte basis for relief from the jury waiver. Defendants oppose.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party can secure their right to a jury trial by timely demanding a jury trial and posting jury fees. (See Code. Civ. Proc. § 631 (b), (f)(4).) Code of Civil Procedure section 631 provides that “[a]t least one party demanding a jury on each side of a civil case shall pay a nonrefundable fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150), unless the fee has been paid by another party on the same side of the case.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 631(b).) The fee must be paid before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action. (Id., section 631(c).) If no case management conference is scheduled in a civil action, the fee shall be due no later than 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint. (Id., section 631(c)(2).) A party waives jury trial by failing to timely pay the fee, unless another party on the same side of the case has paid that fee, or by failing to announce that a jury is required, among other things.  (Id., section 631(f)(4) and (5).)  

“The court may, in its discretion upon just terms, allow a trial by jury although there may have been a waiver of a trial by jury.” (Id., section 631(g).)  “A trial court abuses its discretion as a matter of law when relief has been denied where there has been no prejudice¿to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver.”¿ (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin¿(2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638.) Policy favors the court exercising its discretion to proceed with a jury trial.¿ (Bishop v. Anderson¿(1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 821, 823.)¿  

“Where the right to jury is threatened, the crucial focus is whether any prejudice will be suffered by any party or the court if¿a motion for relief from waiver is granted…relief has been denied where there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver.’”  (Wharton v. Superior Court¿(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 104.)¿¿“The mere fact that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se.”¿¿(Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court¿(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th¿808, 811 [prejudice not shown by need to prepare motions¿in limine, enlarged exhibits, and jury instructions unless inadequate time also shown].)¿¿Rather, the prejudice that must be shown is “prejudice from the granting of relief from waiver not prejudice from the jury trial.”¿¿(Winston v. Superior Court¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602, 603 [fact that it takes longer to try a jury case is not prejudice from granting relief from waiver].) “In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider delay in rescheduling jury trial, lack of funds, timeliness of the request and prejudice to the litigants.” (Gann v. Williams Bros. Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1704.)

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court, on its own, takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint as a court record under Evidence Code section 452(d). Here, Plaintiffs filed the complaint on August 10, 2021 and did not demand a jury trial within. Plaintiff did not pay a jury fee of $150 within 365 days of filing the complaint. As a result, their right to a jury trial was waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 631 (f)(5).) Plaintiff filed a notice of posting of jury fees on April 3, 2024, less than  25 calendar days before the current trial date. Plaintiff then failed to appear at the Final Status Conference on April 4, 2024, and did not file the required Final Status Conference documents five days in advance as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order for PI Hub Procedures.

Counsel for Plaintiff declares that counsel associated into the case on April 11, 2023, and did not immediately discover that jury fees were not paid. (Wallace Decl. ¶ 2-4.) Counsel declares that on March 8, 2024, Plaintiff sent proposed trial documents to counsel for Defendants, which included jury related documents. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further declares that even though counsel discovered the error on April 3, 2024, counsel did not immediately seek relief because the parties had a private mediation scheduled for April 5, 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.) On April 9, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking relief from waiver. Plaintiff further argues that some of Defendants’ motions in limine suggest a contemplated jury trial. (Ex Parte App. at p. 6.)

Defendants argue that they have designed their trial strategy based upon the presumption of a court trial for the last two years. (Aslam Decl. ¶ 7, 14.) Defendant argues that they have completed most of the discovery in this case “and have positioned this case for a bench trial.” (Opposition at p. 5.) “If Defendant anticipated a jury trial, time would have been taken to do a mock jury for this case, retain a jury consultant and evaluated other important issues that come with preparing for a jury trial.” (Id.) “Defendants have prepared this case for a bench trial and will be unduly prejudiced if they are required to change course and develop a new discovery plan and strategy due to the late imposition of a jury trial more than three years after the initial setting of a bench trial.” (Id. at p. 6.)

The Court finds that Defendants will suffer prejudice if relief from waiver is granted. Here, no jury demand appears in the complaint. No filing gave Defendants notice of a jury demand. Although Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff provided jury related documents on March 8, 2024, this date was shortly before the trial date. Moreover, jury fees were not posted until 14 days before trial. Even after that, Plaintiff waited another 6 days to file an ex parte application. In light of Defendants’ arguments about their case and trial preparation, the Court finds that granting relief will likely result in a trial continuance. Plaintiff’s request is untimely.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application Seeking Relief from Jury Waiver is DENIED.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.