Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV18812, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18812    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Giovanni Contaldo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants James G. Wiley Company (“Company”), James Guyton Wiley, Jr. (“Wiley”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On July 21, 2022, Company and Wiley (“Defendants”) filed an answer. 

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from potential jury trial waiver.  The motion was set to be heard on September 12, 2024. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 14, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

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

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: 

* * *

  “(4) By failing to announce that a jury is required, at the time the cause is first set for trial, if it is set upon notice or stipulation, or within five days after notice of setting if it is set without notice or stipulation. 

“(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. 

* * *

 “(g) 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, 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 by the deadline.  Plaintiff has now posted jury fees. 

The Court finds that granting Plaintiff relief from waiver of a jury trial will not prejudice Defendants.  The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Giovanni Contaldo'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.