Judge Audra Mori, Case 20STCV45800 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff Ellyn Humphreys (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Mahmoud Vahedian Ghaffari (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall at a hostel owned by Defendant. Trial is currently set for January 12, 2023.

At this time, Plaintiff moves for relief from Plaintiff’s waiver of a jury trial. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Plaintiff asserts that the complaint requested a jury trial, and that she filed a notice of posting jury fees on January 19, 2022, and paid the fees. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has more than adequate time to prepare for a jury trial and will not suffer serious hardship if Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to post jury fees within the deadlines set by CCP § 631. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff was supposed to post fees one year after the case was filed but missed that deadline by about six weeks. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to correct the error on multiple occasions. Defendant contends that Plaintiff expressly waived the right to a jury trial and that permitting a jury trial is prejudicial to Defendant.

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that it has always been clear she wishes to have a jury trial and that Defendant fails to identify any serious hardship to Defendant. Plaintiff argues that she never waived her to right to a jury trial.

Plaintiff was obligated to post jury fees prior to commencement of trial, and in no event more than 365 days after filing the case. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff seeks relief from this failure per CCP § 631. CCP § 631(g) provides, “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.”

“ “ ‘The denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and requires a reversal of the judgment.’ ” [Citation.]” (Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1, 9.) “A party in a civil case may waive the right to a jury trial under section 631 in several ways, including by failing to deposit jury fees ‘on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action.” (§ 631, subds. (c), (f)(5).) Even when a civil litigant waives his or her right to a jury trial, however, the trial court has discretion to ‘allow a trial by jury.’ ” (Mackovska, 40 Cal.App.5th at 9-10.)

“The trial court should grant a motion for relief of a jury waiver ‘unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.’ [Citation.] When there is doubt about whether to grant relief from a jury trial waiver, the court must resolve that doubt in favor of the party seeking a jury trial.” (Id. at 10.) “In a motion for relief from waiver of a jury trial, the crucial question is whether the party opposing relief will suffer any prejudice if the court grants relief. [Citations.] “ ‘The prejudice which must be shown from granting relief from the waiver is prejudice from the granting of relief and not prejudice from the jury trial.’ ” [Citation.]” (Id.) “ ‘The mere fact that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se.’ ” (Id.)

Moreover, denying relief where the party opposing the motion for relief has not shown prejudice is an abuse of discretion. (Id.; Byram v. Sup.Ct. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, 652 [It is an abuse of discretion to deny relief from waiver, where the waiver was shown to be inadvertent and relief from waiver was sought promptly.]; Winston v. Sup.Ct. (Gibbs) (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602 (fact that it takes longer to try a jury case is not prejudice from granting relief from waiver].)

In this case, Plaintiff failed to post the jury fees within the time required by CCP § 631. While Defendant contends that Plaintiff waived the right to a jury trial, the Court’s records show that Plaintiff filed a notice of posting jury fees on January 19, 2022, and posted the jury fees. Further, in a Case Management Statement filed on May 13, 2022, Plaintiff stated that this matter was to be tried by a jury. Defendant, thus, does not show that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily relinquished the right to a jury trial. Moreover, Defendant does not demonstrate Defendant will suffer any prejudice if the motion is granted and does not provide any legal authority to controvert the proposition that denial of the right to a jury has Constitutional implications. Defendant assets only in a conclusory manner that Defendant “litigated, strategized, and set the course of this matter in reliance on Plaintiff’s lack of pursuit of securing jury …” (Opp. at p. 5: 13-14.) Defendant, however, fails to show how these factors now prejudice Defendant if Plaintiff is granted relief from the jury waiver. Furthermore, Defendant does not articulate any reasons why it did not consider the possibility that this matter would be tried by a jury when Plaintiff posted the fees in January of 2022 or why the current trial date prevents Defendant from sufficiently preparing this matter for a jury trial. The fact that the trial will be by trial is not prejudice per se, and it is an abuse of discretion to deny relief where Defendant does not show any prejudice. (Mackovska, 40 Cal.App.5th at 10.)

Accordingly, the motion is granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s attorney posted the jury fees on January 19, 2022, and therefore no further action is necessary at this time

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court