Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV42883, Date: 2024-09-17 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: 21STCV42883 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff Berenice Murillo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants American Dream Logistics, Inc. (“American Dream”), Doe Driver, and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On December 6, 2021 and July 25, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to replace Doe Driver with Defendant Ramon Chacon (“Chacon”).
On December 13, 2022, the clerk entered American Dream’s default. On June 2, 2023, the Court set aside the default based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and American Dream.
On September 27, 2023, Chacon and American Dream filed an answer.
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Freight Systems, LLC as Doe 1 and BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF") as Doe 2.
On September 6, 2024, BNSF filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants American Dream, Chacon, and Does 1-50 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.
B. This motion
On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from potential jury trial waiver. The motion was set for hearing on September 17, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 28, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff
asks the Court to grant relief from waiver of 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).
* * *
* * *
“(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 failed to post jury fees prior to the commencement of the initial case management conference or within one year of the date the action was filed. Plaintiff has now posted jury fees.
The Court finds that granting Plaintiff relief from waiver of a jury trial will not prejudice the other parties. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Berenice Murillo's motion for relief from jury trial waiver.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling within five days.