Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV28583, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28583    Hearing Date: September 26, 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 September 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Manuel Perez, Aiden Perez, and Ezekiel Perez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Moxie Pest Control, L.P., Darylvone Brown, and Does 1 to 20 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiffs now move for relief from waiver of trial by jury after failing to post jury fees in time. Defendants Moxie Pest Control, L.P. and Darylvone Brown (“Defendants”) opposes and Plaintiffs reply.

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., § 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., § 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.  (Id., § 631(f)(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., § 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 using 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].)

The Supreme Court of California recently summarized the factors courts have relied upon to determine whether granting relief in a particular situation would be “just” under Code of Civil Procedure section 631(g). (TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, 779.) “Among these, the primary consideration is indeed whether granting relief from waiver would result in any hardship to other parties or to the court, such as delay in rescheduling the trial for a jury or inconvenience to witnesses. But courts have also regularly considered other factors, including the timeliness of the request; whether the requester is willing to comply with applicable requirements for payment of jury fees; and the reasons supporting the request.” (Id. at p. 779-80, 782 [disapproving of past cases that suggest hardship is the only relevant consideration under section 631(g)].) However, the Court in TriCoast Builders, Inc. also stated the following proposition favorably: “[w]hen a party that has timely given notice that it desires trial by jury then loses the jury right because of technical noncompliance with some element of statutory procedure — such as failure to pay jury fees at the right time or in the right amount — lack of hardship to the other parties or the court is generally controlling, absent other factors that weigh against relief.” (Id. at p. 782.)

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court, on its own, takes judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ complaint and the docket in this case under Evidence Code section 452(d). Here, Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 1, 2022. The complaint did not include a demand for a jury trial.

On February 7, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Deposit for Jury Fees; this was timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 631(c)(2) because it was filed within 365 days after the initial complaint. However, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Posting Fees on March 20, 2024. As a result, Plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial was waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 631 (f)(5).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel (“Counsel”) declares that he was assigned as the new handling attorney for this case in March 2024. After taking over this case, Counsel posted the jury fees on March 20, 2024. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 2.) However, while Counsel contends he first learned that this case was designated as a non-jury trial in August 2024, he provides no reason why he believed that the jury trial was not waived, given the deadline in Code of Civil Procedure section 631(c)(2).

Plaintiffs also contend that granting relief from the waiver will not present a hardship to Defendants or delay the case.  

In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiffs should have proceeded months ago to seek relief from the waiver. Defendants provide no discussion of hardship, and assert they have no burden to demonstrate prejudice. (Opp., 3.)

The Court notes that trial is currently set for November 4, 2024. The parties filed motions in limine and proposed jury instructions. Although Plaintiff does not explain the delay, neither party asserts that the trial would need to be continued, nor is any prejudice asserted or apparent. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to Request Relief from Waiver of Trial by Jury is GRANTED.

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