Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV30072, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30072    Hearing Date: October 8, 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 14, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Lanham (“Plaintiff” or “Lanham”) filed an action against Defendant Bahareh Natan (“Natan”) and Does 1 through 100 for motor vehicle and general negligence, arising out of an alleged automobile collision that occurred on October 1, 2020. 

Defendant Natan filed an Answer on October 27, 2022.  On the same day, Defendant filed a Notice of Posting Jury Fees in the amount of $150.00.

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Posting Jury Fees in the amount of $150.00, and on August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Demand for Jury Trial.

            On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Granting Relief from Potential Waiver of Trial by Jury (“Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

            Trial is currently set for November 6, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party can secure their right to a jury trial by timely demanding a jury trial and posting jury fees.  (Code. Civ. Proc., § 631, subds. (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, subd. (b).)  The fee must be paid before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action.  (Id. at § 631, subd. (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. at § 631, subd. (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. at § 631, subd. (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. at § 631, subd. (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.¿  (Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, 654.)

“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].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 14, 2022.  On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Posting Jury Fees in the amount of $150.00, and on August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Demand for Jury Trial.

            Plaintiff moves for an order granting relief from potential waiver of a jury trial.  He argues that his failure to post the jury fees prior to the commencement of the initial case management conference or within a year of filing the Complaint was inadvertent.  Plaintiff’s counsel believed that a demand for jury trial had been made and the jury fees had been paid.  (Molchan Decl. ¶ 3.)  As soon as counsel learned of the inadvertent omission, the jury fees were paid on June 28, 2023.  (Ibid.).  Both Plaintiff and Defendant have been preparing for a jury trial since the inception of the case.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that he has spoken to defense counsel and learned that Defendant does not intend to oppose the Motion.  (Id. at ¶ 4.)  Thus, Defendant will not suffer any hardship if the Motion is granted.

No opposition has been filed.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff Michael Lanham’s Motion for Order Granting Relief from Potential Waiver of Trial by Jury is GRANTED.

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