Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01179795, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion -- Other

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Neel Sain (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order reinstating Plaintiff’s right to trial by jury pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631(g). Plaintiff argues jury fees were not posted due to mistake and inadvertence. Defendants Jim McDonald and Country Hills Appraisal Services (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, contending that Plaintiff knowingly waived his right to a jury trial and they will suffer prejudice if this motion is granted.

The failure to timely pay a jury fee constitutes waiver of trial by jury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 651(f)(5).) The court may allow a trial by jury although there may have been a waiver in its discretion upon just terms. (Id. § 651(g).)

“Courts have held that, given the public policy favoring trial by jury, the trial court should grant a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver ‘unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.’ [Citation.] Where doubt exists concerning the propriety of granting relief from such waiver, this doubt, by reason of the constitutional guarantee of right to jury trial (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16), should be resolved in favor of the party requesting trial by jury.” (Gann v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703-1704.) “In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider delay in rescheduling jury trial, lack of funds, timeliness of the request and prejudice to the litigants.” (Id. at p. 1704.)

The Court notes Plaintiff requested a trial by jury in his CMC Statements filed on October 29, 2021, February 17, 2022, May 25, 2022, August 31, 2022, and February 1, 2023. The SAC filed on December 21, 2021 also includes a demand for trial by jury.

Counsel for Plaintiff substituted in this action on December 8, 2021. (Declaration of Bryan Zuetel, ¶ 6.) Counsel states jury fees were not previously posted due to counsel’s misunderstanding that jury fees were not posted by prior counsel and a mis-calendaring for the posting of jury fees. (Id. ¶ 14.)

The critical question is whether Defendants will suffer serious prejudice from the granting of relief from waiver. In this regard, Defendants argue they have focused their discovery and mediation efforts on legal issues properly presented to a judge, rather than a jury. They offer no evidence in support of this assertion and no further clarification or explanation. This vague statement, without more, is insufficient to show prejudice. It is unclear how Defendants’ discovery and mediation strategy might have been changed had they believed a jury trial, rather than a bench trial, would take place. Thus, the Court finds  Defendants have failed to show they will suffer any serious prejudice as a result of the granting of this motion.

Thus, the motion for relief is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to post the required jury fees within five days.

Plaintiff to give notice.