Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV02545, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02545    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PAY JURY FEES is GRANTED. (A proposed order has been filed.)

Background

This is a negligence case. Plaintiff RANDAL WILLIAMS alleges the following against Defendants CITY OF EL MONTE (“City”); COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”); LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT (“Sheriff’s Department”); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION (“CDCR”): Plaintiff’s ankle monitor caused him pain. When Plaintiff went to have the ankle monitor removed, Defendants cut and/or punctured Plaintiff’s leg. (See Complaint p. 6.)

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit for:

1.     General Negligence

2.     Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training, and Retention

On January 29, 2024, the court held a proceeding re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Case Management Conference (on the County and Sheriff’s Department). According to the minute order, “Plaintiff's Counsel informs the Court that they will most likely Dismiss the City of El Monte.”

On May 7, 2024, the court held its hearing on the City’s demurrer filed on 1/12/24, which the court sustained.

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a FAC for the same COAs against the same Defendants.

On June 12, 2024, CDCR filed its answer.

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER CCP, § 473(b) for relief for the failure to pay jury fees.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the court grant relief under CCP, § 473(b), accept the late payment of the jury fees pursuant to CCP, § 631(b), and restore Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial under CCP, § 631(g). According to Plaintiff, the failure to pay jury fees on time resulted from a calendaring error caused by the sudden departure of Plaintiff’s primary assistant. This unexpected staffing change disrupted internal processes and caused the deadline to be inadvertently missed.

Here, the court finds the explanation tantamount to mistake such that relief is warranted. Plus, no opposition has been filed and no prejudice will result to Defendants as the litigation remains in the pre-trial phase.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.