Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: BS173944, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BS173944    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Singh, M.D. vs. Kirchmeyer, et. al., Case No. BS173944

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

            Plaintiff Tajinder Singh, M.D. (Plaintiff) moves for an order granting relief from his waiver of jury trial. The motion is denied.

            “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).) “In exercising its discretion, a court is entitled to consider many factors, including the possibility of delay in rescheduling the trial for a jury, lack of funds, timeliness of request and prejudice to all the litigants.” (March v. Pettis (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 473, 480.)

            On March 28, 2022, the Court found that Plaintiff waived jury trial for failure to post the requisite jury fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 631, subd. (f)(5).)   

            “As a general proposition, ‘[T]he jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity.’ [Citations.]” (Walton v. Walton (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 277, 287.) “There is no right to a jury trial in an action in equity. . . . If the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought depends upon the application of equitable doctrines, the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.” (DiPirro v. Bondo Corp. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 150, 178.) “Although ... ‘the legal or equitable nature of a cause of action ordinarily is determined by the mode of relief to be afforded’ [citation], the prayer for relief in a particular case is not conclusive. . . . ‘[T]he court is not bound by the form of the action but rather by the nature of the rights involved and the facts of the particular case.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 179.)

            Plaintiff has asserted claims against Defendants for disability discrimination under FEHA, Title II of the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Under each cause of action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction “ordering that Defendants deem the fifth successful attempt to take the USMLE sufficient to qualify him for medical licensure” or, alternatively, that Defendants engage in an interactive process with Plaintiff to determine effective reasonable accommodations. (SAC 45, 53, 61.) Plaintiff does not seek damages against Defendants.

            Given the relief sought, this action is one in equity. Consequently, Plaintiff does not have a right to jury trial. Plaintiff also has not presented evidence showing good cause for relief; while the motion refers to a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, no such declaration has been filed. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request has not been timely made. Plaintiff failed to post jury fees despite this case having been set for non-jury trial since the initial Case Management Conference on June 20, 2019. While the Court determined that Plaintiff waived jury trial on March 28, 2022, Plaintiff did not file this motion until August 5, over four months later.

            Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff relief from waiver of jury trial. The motion is denied.