Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV26356, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.


Case Number: 20STCV26356    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 56

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

 

MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL),

 

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

RAYAN NISSANI, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

 

      CASE NO.: 20STCV26356

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE JURY FEES

 

Date:  March 23, 2023

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Non-Jury Trial: May 8, 2023

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

 

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

 

BACKGROUND

            This action was initiated on July 14, 2020.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges claims arising out of Defendants’ breaches of various indemnity agreements.  On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order of Defendants’ jury waiver and striking jury fees (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Defendants did not timely post jury fees and have thus waived their right to a jury trial.

 

DISCUSSION

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.  (CCP § 631, subd. (a).)  In civil cases, a jury may only be waived pursuant to CCP section 631, subdivision (f).  (Id.)  Failure to pay jury fees is grounds to find the right to a jury trial has been waived.  (CCP § 631, subd (f)(5).)  Jury fees are generally due on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action, but if the party requesting a jury has not appeared before the initial case management conference, or first appeared more than 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint, the fee shall be due at least 25 calendar days before the date initially set for trial.  (CCP § 631, subd. (c)(4).)

 

The first case management conference took place on November 18, 2020.  (Declaration of Amanda L. Marutzky (“Marutzky Decl.”) ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff appeared before the Court, but no appearance was made on Defendants’ behalf.  (Id.)  At the case management conference, the Court set a non-jury trial date for January 31, 2022.  (Id., Exhibit A.)  Plaintiff thereafter served Defendants with notice of the January 31, 2022 trial date.  (Id.)  The Court later continued the trial to April 12, 2022, and then to October 18, 2022.  (Marutzky Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  On July 25, 2022, Defendant Hooman Nissani filed a Notice of Posting Jury Fees.  (Marutzky Decl. ¶ 9.)

 

            Defendants did not post jury fees before the deadline set forth in CCP section 631, subdivision (c)(4) and have not sought relief from waiver of jury trial.  For these reasons and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

 

     Dated this 23rd day of March 2023

 

 

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court