Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV21791, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21791 Hearing Date: September 6, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Abner Blanco Ramirez and Rene Zarate filed this action against Defendants T&T Express Company, Inc., Juan Carlos Lopez (“Lopez”), Ed Martinez dba Carrera Hauling (“Martinez”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On August 15, 2022, Lopez and Martinez filed an answer.
On August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from potential jury trial waiver. The motion was set for hearing on September 6, 2024. On August 23, 2024, Lopez and Martinez filed an opposition. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 9, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant relief from potential jury trial waiver.
Lopez
and Martinez 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).
* * *
* * *
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subds. (a), (f)(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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs inadvertently waived their right to a jury trial by posting jury fees after the deadline. The waiver was unintentional.
Lopez and Martinez argue that the case is complex and a judge is better suited than a jury to decide issues of liability, causation, and credibility. Lopez and Martinez also argue that they will be prejudiced by a jury trial because they will incur more litigation costs and attorney’s fees than they would incur if the case proceeds as a bench trial.
In California, juries are regularly asked to decide important and complicated issues. Also, “[t]he 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.)
The Court finds that granting Plaintiffs 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 for relief from jury trial waiver filed by Plaintiffs Abner Blanco Ramirez and Rene Zarate.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.