Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV22211, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22211    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

January 19, 2023

 

Shetz v. Hudson

Case No. 22STCV22211

 

Defendants’ ex parte application to establish that Plaintiff has waived jury trial

 

Tentative ruling:  The ex parte application is denied.

 

           Defendants Tyrone and Christine Hudson seek by ex parte application an order establishing that Plaintiff Claire Shetz has waived her right to jury trial.  Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (c), states that, with exceptions not pertinent here, the jury fee “shall be due on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference.”  Section 631, subdivision (f)(5) provides that one of the ways trial by jury is waived is failure timely to pay the fee.  Defendants contend that the initial case management conference was November 22, 2022, and that Plaintiff did not post jury fees until December 29, 2022.  Because, they argue, the fees were late, Plaintiff waived trial by jury.

 

           Plaintiff Shetz opposes the ex parte motion.  Plaintiff points out that based on the minutes of the Court, the case management conference was not held on November 22, 2022, but on January 17, 2023, and that the jury fees Plaintiff posted on December 29, 2022 were timely.  Thus, she argues, the fees were not late and there was no waiver. 

 

           The Court agrees with Plaintiff.  The ex parte application is denied.  Plaintiff has not waived jury trial because the fees were not posted late.  Even if the fees had been inadvertently late and Plaintiff waived her right to a jury, because Defendants have shown no prejudice from a trial by jury, the Court would almost certainly abuse its discretion if it denied relief from such a waiver. 

 

           On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this matter with the filing of her complaint for disability discrimination, elder abuse, and other claims.  That same day, the Court issued a notice of Case Management Conference to be held in Department 58 on November 22, 2022.   On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff moved for trial preference. At a hearing on September 30, 2022, the Court granted the motion and set trial for February 6, 2023.  Because the trial date was set, in the minute order of September 30, 2022, a trial readiness conference was scheduled for November 22, 2022, and the “previously set Case Management Conference … [is] advanced and vacated.”  

 

On October 14, 2022, the Court set the Case Management Conference for January 17, 2023.  On November 22, 2022, the Court denied Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the trial date and reset the Trial Readiness Conference for December 6, 2022.  In November and December 2022, the Court heard a number of law and motion matters, several on an ex parte basis, in part due to the compressed time schedule occasioned by the early trial date.  On December 6, 2022, the Court conducted a Trial Readiness Conference and set hearing dates for various matters.

 

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff posted jury fees.  On January 17, 2023, the Court conducted the Case Management Conference.

 

Thus, while the Case Management Conference was initially set for November 22, 2022, that date was later vacated.  On October 14, 2022, the Court reset the Case Management Conference for January 17, 2023.  Accordingly, Plaintiff posted the fees required to secure a jury before the Case Management Conference was held. 

 

The confusion about dates is understandable.  The Court and parties have had to proceed under a fast-tracked schedule.  But as explained, Plaintiff did not run afoul of Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (c).

 

Even if Plaintiff had filed her fees late, she could have applied for relief from waiver of jury trial.  Given the circumstances in this case, the Court would likely have granted such relief. Courts have held that given the importance of the jury trial right, to deny relief is an abuse of discretion.  (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638 [all doubts are resolved in favor of granting relief from an inadvertent waiver if there has been no prejudice to the other party]; Wharton v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 104 [trial court abused discretion by failing to relieve a party from its jury waiver where counsel accidentally posted jury fees below the required amount; Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602 [abuse of discretion to deny relief where there has been no prejudice to the other side or the court from an inadvertent waiver].)

 

Here, Defendants have not addressed how they would be prejudiced by having a trial by jury.  They would have a difficult time doing so because they requested a jury and posted fees themselves.  The additional work involved in preparing jury instructions or motions in limine do not suffice to show prejudice. (Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811-812.)

 

Because Plaintiff did not post fees late, and in any event Defendants have not demonstrated any prejudice from having a jury hear the cause, Defendants’ ex parte application is denied.