Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 20STCV37559, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Jesse Berent vs. Sumi Siegel, et al.; 20STCV37559

Moving Parties: Defendant Charles “Max” Massie and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sumi Siegel

Defendant Charles “Max” Massie and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sumi Siegl (Defendants) have filed a motion for relief from jury waiver. Defendants’ motion claims that the waiver was inadvertent and that the jury fees had not been posted because of staffing issues in Defendants’ counsel’s office at the time the fees were due.

At the Final Status Conference on July 14, 2023, Defendants’ counsel claims to have learned for the first time that the jury fees had not been posted. (Motion at pp. 4-5.) Throughout the litigation process, Defendants’ counsel had believed that the jury fees had been posted because a jury trial was set at the trial setting conference on December 2, 2022. (Motion at p. 4.) Immediately after learning that the fees had not been posted, Defendants’ counsel posted the jury fees and prepared this motion. (Motion at p. 5.)

Defendants argue that the motion for relief from jury waiver should be granted because the CCP allows for such relief and because there would be no prejudice to Plaintiff in granting such relief.

CCP § 631(g) allows a court to use its discretion to allow a trial by jury even if there was a waiver of trial by jury. CCP § 473(b) gives the Court discretion to relieve Defendants from the July 14, 2023, order deeming jury trial waived.

“[I]n light of the public policy favoring trial by jury, a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver should be granted unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.” (Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806, 809.) “[B]ecause our state Constitution identifies the right to jury trial as ‘inviolate’ (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16), any ambiguity or doubt concerning the waiver provisions of section 631 must be ‘resolved in favor of according to a litigant a jury trial.’” (Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 958.)

At this point, there does not appear to be any prejudice to Plaintiff if the Court grants Defendants’ request, particularly because Plaintiff originally requested the jury trial. Because there is no prejudice to Plaintiff and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the waiver, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for relief from jury waiver.