Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 19STCV35695 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff, Marthe De La Torre, filed this action against defendants Erjaei Seyed Hosein (“Hosein”) and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for injuries arising from a collision between Plaintiff, who was walking on a sidewalk, and Hosein, who was operating a Lyft motorized scooter.

On February 15, 2023, Lyft filed this motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand and/or set the matter for a nonjury trial. Plaintiff opposes and Lyft replies.

As a threshold matter, the Court construes Plaintiff’s opposition as a request for relief from inadvertent waiver of trial by jury.

Under the California constitution, “[t]rial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured by all[.]” Therefore, “[w]here doubt exists concerning the propriety of granting relief from [a jury trial] waiver, this doubt, by reason of the constitutional guarantee of right to jury trial, 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.) The court may, in its discretion upon just terms, allow a trial by jury despite the waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).) Where the right to jury is threatened, the crucial focus is whether any prejudice will be suffered by any party or the court if a motion for relief from waiver is granted. (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Ass’n v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638-39 (Tesoro Del Valle).) “A trial court abuses its discretion as a matter of law when ‘. . . relief has been denied where there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver. [Citations.]’” (Wharton v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 104.) “The prejudice which must be shown from granting relief from the waiver is prejudice from the granting of relief and not prejudice from the jury trial.” (Gann, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 1704.)

Lyft argues that Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial because Plaintiff did not timely post jury fees, and Plaintiff has litigated this case for three years without raising the issue of a jury trial.

Plaintiff contends the failure to timely pay jury fees was not intentional but inadvertent and Lyft will not suffer prejudice should the waiver be excused.

There is no doubt Plaintiff failed to post her jury fees timely. Parties must pay jury fees no later than 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd (c)(2).) Here, Plaintiff posted jury fees on November 17, 2022—more than three years after Plaintiff filed her complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff waived her right to a trial by jury. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (f)(5).)

But that is not the end of the analysis. Despite Plaintiff’s failure to timely pay jury fees, the Court must balance the equities, and “[w]here doubt exists concerning the propriety of granting relief from [a jury trial] waiver, this doubt, by reason of the constitutional guarantee of right to jury trial, should be resolved in favor of the party requesting trial by jury.” (Gann, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1703-1704.) Plaintiff points to the upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to Plaintiff’s counsel’s secretary’s failure to pay jury fees as the causes for the inadvertent failure to timely pay fees. In support, Plaintiff cites Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, for the proposition that a failure to deposit jury fees due to inadvertence, such as an attorney’s reliance upon his secretary to make the deposit, is sufficient grounds for relief.

Lyft distinguishes Byram on the facts, but misses the critical point that “[t]rial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured by all[.]” (California Constitution, Art. I, section 16.) Moreover, there is no evidence Plaintiff intentionally and specifically waived the right to a jury trial. For example, Lyft cannot point to an instance where Plaintiff stated she did not want a jury trial and preferred a bench trial.

Lyft will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. Trial is over seven months away. There is more than sufficient time for the parties to prepare for a jury trial.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Lyft’s motion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for relief from inadvertent waiver.

Accordingly, Lyft’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for relief from inadvertent waiver of trial by jury is GRANTED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court