Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV01810, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV01810 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: 14
Meyerink v. Academy of Motion Pictures
Case Background
Plaintiff was forced to take the
stairs into the Defendant’s facility because an event was blocking the access
ramp. Plaintiff then fell on the stairs.
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed her
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Premises Liability, (2) Negligence Per
Se, and (3) Violation of the Unruh Act against Defendants Academy of Motion Picture
Arts & Sciences (“Academy”) and DOES 1-50. On April 13, 2021, Defendant Academy
filed its Answer.
On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an
“Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant The Vine Street Archive
Foundation (“Archive”) in lieu of DOE 1. On April 26, 2021, Defendant Archive
filed its Answer.
On June 13, 2022, Judge Michael E.
Whitaker determined that the case was “complicated,” and it was assigned to
this department.
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed
an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Offenhauser/Mekeel Architects
(“Architects”) in lieu of DOE 2.
On November 28, 2023, Defendant Architects
filed their Answer.
On December 18, 2023, this court
signed a stipulation and order dismissing the third cause of action as asserted
against Defendant Architects.
On January 19, 2023, this court
dismissed Defendant DOES 3-50, without prejudice.
Bench Trial is currently set for March
25, 2024.
Instant Motion
Plaintiff now moves this court for
an order relieving her from a waiver of a jury trial in this case.
Decision
The motion is GRANTED. The trial in
this matter will be by jury.
Governing Standard
The right to a trial by jury in a civil case is guaranteed
by Article I, § 16 of the California Constitution, which expressly
provides that “a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as
described by statute.”
Code of
Civil Procedure § 631 provides in relevant part as follows:
“(a) The right to a trial by jury
as declared by Section 16 of Article I of the California Constitution shall be
preserved to the parties inviolate. In civil cases, a jury may only be waived
pursuant to subdivision (f).
(b) At 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…
(c) The fee described in
subdivision (b) shall be due on or before the date scheduled for the initial
case management conference in the action…
…
(f) A party waives trial by jury in
any of the following ways:
…
(3) By oral consent, in open court, entered in the minutes.
…
(5) By failing to timely pay the
fee described in subdivision (b), unless another party on the same side of the
case has paid that fee.
…
(g) 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.”
Where a waiver has
occurred due to a failure to post jury fees, the court must grant relief under
Section 631(g) unless the party opposing relief can show prejudice. Johnson-Stovall
v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 810. The additional
length, effort, expense, and exposure of a jury trial does not create prejudice.
Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 603. “The mere fact
that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se.” Johnson-Stovall, supra,
17 Cal.App.4th at 811. Prejudice most commonly comes from having to
put in the extra work to prepare for a jury trial on short notice. See Gann
v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703-05 (waiver
enforced when fees were posted a mere 5 days before trial).
However,
where a waiver has been deliberately made, a motion for relief from that waiver
must offer some reason other than mere change of mind. March v. Pettis
(1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 473, 480.
Discussion
The initial
case management conference was held on August 24, 2022. No fees had been posted
and the court set the matter for a bench trial. (See Minute Order of August 24,
2022).
On April
27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Posting of Jury Fees. The statutory
amount was paid to the clerk the next day. These actions were undertaken spontaneously
by Plaintiff. No subsequent change in the type of trial was requested of or
directed by this court until now.
Defendants
Academy and Archive rightly point out that it was Plaintiff’s burden to cure
her own waiver, and that they have no burden to establish prejudice on this
motion. Plaintiff posted jury fees eight months after her jury trial right had
already been waived, and she waited another nine months to bring the instant
motion. The result is that the court must decide this issue with only 32 days
to go before trial, and that Plaintiff has the burden of persuading the court
that a switch at this late date would not prejudice Defense.
That said, the
right to a jury is constitutional in nature, and the court cannot deny the
motion simply because of the length of Plaintiff’s delay. And the trial date is
not quite so close that it will cause Defense serious loss to prepare for a
jury instead of a bench trial. There are still a couple of days before the discovery
cut-off, and the Final Status Conference is three weeks away. The effort of
preparing for a jury trial at this point is still more a minor inconvenience
than a real prejudice.
Conclusion
Plaintiff
has waited until the last minute to seek relief from her waiver. Any further
delay might well have resulted in a different outcome. Nevertheless, the last
minute is still the last minute, and there will be no significant prejudice
from the switch. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. The trial in this matter
will be by jury.