Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV32202, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32202 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV32202
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff Douglas Enrique Pena Arcia (“Arcia”) filed an action against Defendants Joshua Zachary Justman, Justman Packaging & Display, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 22STCV32202.)
On December 7, 2022, Defendants Justman Packaging & Display and Joshua Justman filed an answer.
B. Case number 22AHCV01112
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff Jack Lau (“Lau”) filed an action against Defendants Joshua Zachary Justman dba Justman Packaging and Display, Arcia, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 22AHCV01112.)
On February 6, 2023, Defendant Joshua Zachary Justman filed an answer.
On February 16, 2023, Arcia filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Joshua Zachary Justman dba Justman Packaging and Display and Roes 1-50 for indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief. On March 1, 2023, Cross-Defendant Joshua Zachary Justman dba Justman Packaging and Display filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On April 26, 2024, the Court dismissed Arcia from Lau’s complaint with prejudice at Lau’s request.
On May 30, 2024, the Court dismissed Arcia’s cross-complaint with prejudice at Arcia’s request.
C. Case number 22AHCV01173
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff Jairo Alejandro Benitez Linares filed an action against Defendants Joshua Zachary Justman, Morley Justman, Justman Packaging & Display, and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 22AHCV01173.)
On January 31, 2023, Defendants Justman Packaging & Display, Joshua Justman, and Morley Justman filed an answer. On February 15, 2023, Defendants Justman Packaging & Display and Joshua Zachary Justman filed an amended answer. On March 23, 2023, Defendant Morley Justman filed an answer.
D. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On February 24, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV32202, 22AHCV01112, and 22AHCV01173 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV32202 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 31 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On May 9, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to consolidate the cases for all purposes. The cases were assigned to Department 31 in the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. Case number 22STCV32202 remained the lead case.
E. This motion
On August 19, 2024, Arcia filed a motion for relief from potential jury trial waiver. The motion was set for hearing on October 3, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 27, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Arcia
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
Arcia inadvertently failed to post jury fees prior to the commencement of the initial case management conference or within one year of the date he filed the action. Arcia has now paid the jury fees.
The Court finds that granting Arcia 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 Douglas Enrique Pena Arcia 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.