Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV45935, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45935    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On December 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Josefina Dobin and Eugene Coleman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Katherine Martinez-Barahona and Jose Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendants move for relief from waiver of a jury trial for failing to timely post jury fees.  The motion is unopposed. 

This matter was initially set for trial for June 1, 2022.  Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the trial date was continued to April 21, 2023.  Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 16, 2022, but Defendants did not file a notice of posting of jury fees until October 10, 2022. 

2. Motion for Relief from Jury Waiver

Because Defendants first appeared in this action more than 365 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants were obligated post jury fees at least 25 calendar days before the date the case was initially set for trial.  (CCP § 631(c)(4).)  Defendants failed to do so.  Defendants seek 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].)

Here, Defendants state that Defendants’ counsel mistakenly believed they had already posted jury fees when defense counsel learned the action was set for a non-jury trial when the initial trial date was continued.  Defendants assert that they demanded a jury trial in their answer, and that there will be no prejudice to any party if the motion is granted.  Defendants aver that granting the motion will not cause delay or require continuing the trial date.  Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and thus, there is no showing of prejudice to any party.  (Mackovska, 40 Cal.App.5th at 10.) 

The motion is granted.  Defendants’ counsel posted the jury fees on October 10, 2022, and therefore, no further action is necessary at this time. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 5^th day of December 2022