Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV16829, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16829 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition papers, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2021, Plaintiff Alvin Jay Cawilan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Alethea Espino (“Espino”), Pierce Brooks (“Brooks”), and Does 1-100 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, general negligence, and premises liability.
On November 29, 2021, Espino and Brooks (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a demand for a jury trial. The same day, Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s jury trial demand.
On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from jury trial waiver to be heard on February 6, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.) On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 20, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from his waiver of jury trial.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion.
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’s counsel was assigned to handle this case “in or about May, 2023.” (Salute Dec. ¶ 3.) On November 15, 2023, “it came to [counsel’s] attention that jury fees had not been posted.” (Salute Dec. ¶ 6.) Counsel arranged to have his office post jury fees the same day.
On November 20, 2023, after speaking with Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel “realized that a Demand for Jury Trial had not been filed by the Plaintiff.” (Salute Dec. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel arranged to file a demand the same day.
Plaintiff’s counsel states:
“The failure to timely demand a jury trial and post jury fees was due to mistake, inadvertence, and/or neglect by individuals in my office. While I was not counsel for plaintiff at the time that the matter was filed, I am aware of the office procedures and processes. There is an office policy that a demand for jury trial is supposed to be filed and jury fees are supposed to be posted within one year from the date that the matter is filed. As stated above, I do not know why this policy was not followed other than mistake, inadvertence, and/or neglect.” (Salute Dec. ¶ 10.)
Defendants assert that they “fully relied upon this case being a bench trial.” (Opposition p. 2.) They argue:
“At the time Defendants received the Complaint and filed their Answer, Defendants seriously assessed the option of making the demand for jury or to proceed with a bench trial. Defendants opted for a bench trial. When Plaintiff made his demand for jury trial, that left Defendants and undersigned counsel only 84 days to prepare for a jury trial. Without a final determination on who would be the trier of fact, Defendants were left in limbo whether to process the case as a jury or bench trial. Moreover, Defendants’ decisions to grant a stipulation request and overall strategy had always been tied to the fact this was supposed to be a bench trial.” (Opposition p. 3.)
In addition, Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiff has provided inadequate information about the failure to demand a jury trial or post jury fees and (2) Plaintiff delayed in correcting the mistake.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's jury trial waiver was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or neglect. Defendants have failed to show they will suffer prejudice from an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the waiver. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Alvin Jay Cawilan’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.