Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV06413, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 21STCV06413 Hearing Date: June 21, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and joinder, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff Yemane G. Gebregziabher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bethelhem Tesfaye (“Tesfaye”), Maricruz Chia (“Chia”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and emotional distress.
On October 7, 2022, Chia filed an answer.
On October 10, 2022, Chia filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Tesfaye and Roes 1-10 for implied indemnity, comparative indemnity, declaratory relief, equitable indemnity, and contribution.
On April 4, 2023, Tesfaye filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On May 25, 2023, Tesfaye filed an answer to Chia’s cross-complaint.
On March 22, 2024, Tesfaye filed a motion for an order granting a jury trial, to be heard on May 13, 2024. On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a joinder in the motion. The Court continued the hearing to June 21, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 12, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUEST
Tesfaye asks the Court to grant relief from the waiver of a jury trial. Plaintiff joins in the request.
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).
* * *
* * *
“(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
Tesfaye inadvertently waived her right to a jury trial by posting jury fees after the deadline. The waiver was unintentional.
Plaintiff joins in Tesfaye’s request for relief from the inadvertent jury trial waiver.
The Court finds that granting Tesfaye relief from waiver of a jury trial will not prejudice Plaintiff or Chia. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Bethelhem Tesfaye’s motion for relief from the waiver of a 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.