Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV09214, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09214    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

 

Hearing Date:                4/8/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:          21STCV09214 MATIAS SALINAS ORTIZ vs ROBERT ANTHONY AVELAR JR.

Motion:                              Motion for Relief for Waiver of Jury Trial

Moving Party:                 Plaintiff

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Notice:                                Sufficient

Shape¿ 

Ruling:                               MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL IS GRANTED

 

Legal Standard

 

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 631(a).)¿ “In civil cases, a jury may only be waived pursuant to subdivision (f).”¿ (Id.)¿ CCP section 631(f) provides that a party waives trial by jury by (1) failing to appear at the trial; (2) written consent filed with the clerk or judge; (3) oral consent, in open court, entered in the minutes; (4) failing to announce that a jury is required, at the time the cause is first set for trial, if it is set upon notice of stipulation, or within five days after notice of setting if it is set without notice or stipulation; (5) failing to timely pay the fee described in subdivision (b), unless another party on the same side of the case has paid that fee; or (6) 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).¿(Id., § 631(f).)

 

“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.”  (Id., § 631(g).)  “The trial court should grant a motion for relief of a jury waiver ‘unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.’” (Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1, 10 (quoting Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806, 809).)  “When there is doubt about whether to grant relief from a jury trial waiver, the court must resolve that doubt in favor of the party seeking a jury trial.” (Id.)

 

“In a motion for relief from waiver of a jury trial, the crucial question is whether the party opposing relief will suffer any prejudice if the court grants relief.”¿ (Mackovska, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at 10.)¿ “‘‘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.’’”¿ (Id. (quoting Massie v. AAR Western Skyways, Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 405, 411).)¿ “‘The mere fact that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se.’”¿ (Id. (quoting Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811).)¿ “Denying relief where the party opposing the motion for relief has not shown prejudice is an abuse of discretion.”¿ (Id.)

¿ 

Analysis and Conclusion

 

On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present complaint. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631(c)(2), jury fees must be paid no later than 365 calendar days after the complaint is filed, meaning that the jury fee must be paid by March 9, 2022. Due to Plaintiff's counsel's inadvertence, Plaintiff did not post jury fees on time and posted them late on January 30, 2023. Defendant posted jury fees on February 16, 2023. Both parties were operating under the assumption that a jury trial would be conducted. On September 18, 2023, the Parties entered into a stipulation to continue a jury trial to the current trial date of May 20, 2024. On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff's counsel discovered his mistake and that a non-jury trial is set for May 20, 2024. Plaintiff now moves the Court for relief from waiver of jury trial.

 

The Court finds good cause for relief from waiver. The sequence of events outlined in Plaintiff's declaration demonstrates that the Parties were litigating this case under the assumption that a jury trial would occur. Furthermore, no opposition was filed claiming prejudice. The Court finds that no prejudice would likely result from the relief and imposing a trial waiver based on these facts is overly punitive. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.