Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21STCV13870, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13870    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      December 12, 2023                                         TRIAL DATE: July 9, 2024

CASE:                         K REPUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a California Corporation doing business as K REPUBLIC KARAOKE, v. SOUTH ATLANTIC INVESTMENT LLC, a California limited liability company; 111 NORTH ATLANTIC LLC, a California limited liability company; WEI “JASON” CHEN, an individual and sole managing member of SOUTH ATLANTIC INVESTMENT LLC, CUONG “ROBERT” LUU, an individual; GLOBAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV13870

MOTION FOR ORDER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants South Atlantic Investment LLC, Wei “Jason” Chen, and Coung C. Luu

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff K Republic Entertainment Group

SERVICE:                              Filed November 3, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed November 27, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed December 5, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendants move for an order enforcing the waiver of jury trial.

BACKGROUND

             This complaint arises out of Plaintiff K Republic Entertainment Group’s (“Plaintiff”) allegations that the landlord and property manager to its leased property failed to properly maintain and repair the premises when multiple leaks occurred. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 16, 2022, alleging ten causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) gross negligence, (3) res ipsa loquitor negligence, (4) negligence per se, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of contract, (7) breach of contract, (8) intentional misrepresentation, (9) negligent misrepresentation, and (10 ) unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ motion to enforce is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants move to enforce Plaintiff’s purported waiver of jury trial. As a preliminary note, Defendant does not identify the procedural mechanism for that basis of this motion to “enforce”. Nonetheless, the court looks to Defendants’ substantive arguments.

            “A party waives trial by jury in any of the following ways: [¶] (1) By failing to appear at the trial. [¶] (2) By written consent filed with the clerk or judge. [¶] (3) By oral consent, in open court, entered in the minutes. [¶] (4) By failing to announce that a jury is required, at the time the cause is first set for trial, if it is set upon notice or stipulation, or within five days after notice of setting if it is set without notice or stipulation. [¶] (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. [¶] (6) By failing to deposit with the clerk or judge, at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day's session, the sum provided in subdivision (e).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 631, subd. (f).)

            A jury trial is currently set in this matter for July 9, 2024. Defendants makes various arguments that Plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to ever make a demand for jury trial. The caption of Plaintiff’s complaint and first amended complaint both contain and bolded, all capital letters “request for jury trial”. Defendant argues that request was improper, citing various local rules for federal district courts located in California. The cited rules are not applicable to this present case.

            Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to timely pay jury fees. Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivisions (b) and (c), provide that a fee of $150 must be paid “on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference”. In opposition Plaintiff contends its posting of jury fees on April 26, 2023, was timely because it was prior to the matter was set for trial. However, that is not the applicable deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, which requires the advance jury fee to be posted on or before the initial case management conference. It appears that the first case management conference in this case was held on January 12, 2022. Thus, Plaintiff has waived its jury trial rights pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (f)(5) by failing to deposit an advance jury fee.

            Third, Defendant argues that the parties entered into an agreement to waive jury trial. Defendants provide that the parties entered into a lease agreement in 2015 that contained a provision to waive jury trial. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

            “Our Constitution treats the historical right to a jury resolution of disputes that have been brought to a judicial forum as fundamental, providing that in ‘a civil cause,’ any waiver of the inviolate right to a jury determination must occur by the consent of the parties to the cause as provided by statute.” (Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 951.) The California Supreme Court stated that “ ‘unless the Legislature prescribes a jury waiver method, we cannot enforce it.’ ” (Id. at p. 956.) “[N]either section 631 nor any other statute authorizes predispute waivers of the right to jury trial by parties who submit their disputes to a judicial forum. [Citation.] Such waivers therefore are not enforceable.” (Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.)

            Defendants’ arguments that Grafton is inapplicable because the parties in the current circumstances may elect to resolve this dispute through alternative means finds no support in Grafton. The crux of the Court’s holding in Grafton was that the means of waiving the right to jury trial must be prescribed by the legislature. (Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 956.) Thus, because Defendants fail to point to any statutory basis for a predispute agreement to waive a jury trial, Defendants’ attempt to enforce such an agreement is invalid as a matter of law.

            Lastly, Defendant argues no jury trial right exists for an Unfair Competition Law claim. However, this argument ignores Plaintiff’s other causes of action and is rejected.

            The remaining issue is the impact of Plaintiff’s failure to file an advance jury fee. Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (g), provides: “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.”

Although Plaintiff waived its jury trial, in consideration of the weight given to the right to trial by jury and the fact that jury trial has been scheduled and a fee has been paid, the court denies Defendants’ motion to enforce waiver.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to enforce is DENIED.

Dated:   December 12, 2023                                       ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org