Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21SSTCV42563, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21SSTCV42563 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff Danielle Alexis Venegas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Montebello (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for damages for personal injuries against public entities and employees based on a dangerous condition of public property.
On December 22, 2021, Defendant City of Montebello filed an answer.
On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from failure to timely post jury fees, to be heard on April 25, 2024. Defendant has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 8, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from the waiver of a jury trial.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 631 provides in part:
“(a) 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. In civil cases, a jury may only be waived pursuant to subdivision (f).
* * *
“(f) A party waives trial by jury in any of the following ways:
* * *
“(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.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subds. (a), (f)(4) & (5), (g).)
“ ‘The right to a jury trial is a basic and fundamental part of our system of jurisprudence . . . In case of doubt, therefore, the issue should be resolved in favor of preserving a litigant’s right to trial by jury.’” (R. Fairbank et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (Rutter 2022) ¶ 2:311, p. 2-68 (Cal. Practice Guide), quoting Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 648, 652; see Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 958 [“any ambiguity or doubt concerning the waiver provisions of section 631 must be ‘resolved in favor of according to a litigant a jury trial’ ”].)
“While the matter is discretionary, ‘it is well settled that, in light of the public policy favoring trial by jury, a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver should be granted unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 2:317, pp. 2-69 to 2-70, quoting Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806, 809.) “Stated differently, ‘The Court abuses its discretion in denying relief where there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver.’” (Id. at p. 2-70, quoting Gann v. William Bros. Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1704.)
“The prejudice which must be shown to justify [denial of relief from jury trial waiver] is prejudice from granting relief from the waiver, as opposed to prejudice from a jury trial.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 2:320, p. 2-70.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff inadvertently posted jury fees in an untimely manner. The jury trial waiver resulted from an “inadvertent oversight” because Plaintiff believed she had paid the fees. Plaintiff argues that Defendant will suffer no prejudice if the Court grants the motion. Indeed, Plaintiff notes that Defendant has already requested a jury trial.
The Court finds that granting Plaintiff relief from waiver of a jury trial will not prejudice Defendant. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Danielle Alexis Venegas’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.