Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV35282, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35282    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.          INTRODUCTION

On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff Dionna Squires filed this action against Defendants Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC, and Robert A. Foronda for injuries arising from an October 17, 2019 motor vehicle accident. 

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, demanded a jury trial.  Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC, and Robert A. Foronda (hereinafter, “Defendants”) oppose.  Trial is set for April 7, 2023.

As a preliminary matter, the Court treats Plaintiff’s demand as seeking relief from inadvertent waiver of a jury trial.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

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.) 

III.       DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts a demand for a jury trial.  

Defendants argue that Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial because (1) Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time the deadlines to file a jury trial demand and to pay jury fees passed, which indicates Plaintiff chose not to demand a jury trial, and (2) Plaintiff has yet to file a notice that she paid her jury fee.  Further, Plaintiff merely filed a Jury Trial Demand instead of a motion. 

As Defendants correctly point out, Plaintiff has yet to file notice that she paid jury fees.  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, more than a year has passed since Plaintiff filed her complaint.  Plaintiff has yet to pay jury fees.  Accordingly, Plaintiff waived her right to a trial by jury.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd (f)(5).)

However, despite Plaintiff’s failure to pay jury fees, the Court must balance the equites, 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 v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703-1704.)[1]  At the outset of the case, Plaintiff indicated a desire for a jury trial on her Civil Case Cover Sheet.  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, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. 638-39.)  Here, Defendants fail to demonstrate they will suffer any prejudice.  Indeed, Defendants do not discuss prejudice at all in their opposition papers.  

Absent prejudice, Plaintiff is entitled to relief from her jury waiver.    

IV.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  

Moving party to give notice.

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.

         Dated this 5th day of April 2023