Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV03148, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV03148 Hearing Date: September 30, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff Victor Assouline (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Patricia Corporation (“Patricia”), Hyperion UTS, Inc. (“Hyperion”), Transunion Van Lines, LLC (“Transunion”), and Does 1-100 for general negligence and premises liability.
On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On March 10, 2022, Hyperion filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Patricia, Transunion, and Roes 1-100 for breach of written contact (sublease), indemnity and equitable apportionment, total indemnity, and declaratory relief.
On April 14, 2022, Transunion filed an answer to Hyperion’s cross-complaint. On June 8, 2022, Patricia filed an answer to Hyperion’s cross-complaint.
On April 14, 2022, Transunion filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hyperion, Patricia, and Moes 1-30 for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, equitable indemnity, negligence, and declaratory relief.
On April 15, 2024, Hyperion filed an answer to Transunion’s cross-complaint.
On April 21, 2022, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s count 2 (willful failure to warn) alleged against Patricia based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and Patricia.
On April 28, 2022, Patricia filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hyperion, Transunion, and Zoes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On June 6, 2022, based on the stipulation of Hyperion and Patricia, the Court (1) dismissed without prejudice Hyperion’s first cause of action for express indemnity against Patricia, (2) struck Hyperion’s claim for punitive damages from its cross-complaint without prejudice, and (3) struck Hyperion’s claims for attorney’s fees from its cross-complaint without prejudice.
On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant 5M Arminta, LLC, as Doe 1 (“Arminta”). On June 5, 2023, Arminta filed an answer. On June 14, 2023, Arminta filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hyperion, Transunion, and Zoes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and express indemnity.
On July 10, 2023, Transunion filed an answer to Arminta’s cross-complaint.
On September 27, 2023, Transunion amended its cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendants Coast Transport, Inc., as Roe 1, Joseph Assuline as Roe 2, and San Shvartz as Roe 3.
On October 25, 2023, Patricia and Arminta amended their cross-complaints to include Cross-Defendants Coast Transport, Inc., as Zoe 1, Joseph Assuline as Zoe 2, and Sam Shvartz as Zoe 3.
On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from potential waiver of trial by jury. The motion was set for hearing on September 30, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 19, 2024.
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 of filing the action. Plaintiff has now paid the 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 the motion of Plaintiff Victor Assouline 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.