Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV01547, Date: 2023-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01547    Hearing Date: December 27, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Diaz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Luis Pedro Roman (“Roman”), Roman, Inc. (“Roman Inc.”) and Does 1-10 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 7, 2022, Roman and Roman, Inc. filed an answer. 

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from waiver of jury trial to be heard on December 27, 2023.  No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 23, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from waiver of jury trial. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).) 

“Generally, the failure to deposit jury fees at least 25 calendar days before the date initially set for trial constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial.” (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638 (Tesoro), citing Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subds. (b) & (d)(5); Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 956 (Grafton Partners).) “Nonetheless, in the event of a waiver, the trial court retains discretion to allow a trial by jury.”  (Ibid., citing Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (e); Johnson–Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 810 (Johnson-Stovall); Gann v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703–1704 (Gann).) “In exercising such discretion, courts are mindful of the requirement ‘to resolve doubts in interpreting the waiver provisions of section 631 in favor of a litigant's right to jury trial. [Citations.]’” (Ibid., quoting Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 956.)  “Accordingly, ‘[w]here the right to jury is threatened, the crucial focus is whether any prejudice will be suffered by any party or the court if a motion for relief from waiver is granted. [Citation.] A trial court abuses its discretion as a matter of law when “relief has been denied where there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver. [Citations.]” [Citations.]’” (Ibid., quoting Wharton v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 104.) 

In Tesoro, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to permit a jury trial because “Tesoro demonstrated that it made an inadvertent mistake by relying on the local rule timeline.” (Tesoro, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 638, citing Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602–603 [inadvertent waiver shown where failure to post fees occurred from inconsistency in the time requirement among statutes].) In addition, the party opposing relief from the waiver had not demonstrated any prejudice from a jury trial.  (Id. at pp. 638-639, citing Johnson–Stovall, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 811 [“The mere fact that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se”]; Gann, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1704 [“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”].) “‘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. 639, quoting Gann, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1704.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff did not post jury fees by the deadline due to counsel’s oversight. 

The Court finds that no party will suffer prejudice as the result of granting Plaintiff’s motion for relief from her inadvertent waiver of a jury trial. The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Maria Diaz’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial.  The Court orders Plaintiff to post jury fees within five days of this order. 

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.