Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV15150, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15150 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff Nikole Marie Omotoy (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Gianluca Paci (“Defendant”) and Does 1-110 for motor vehicle tort.
On August 18, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from waiver of jury trial, to be heard on April 10, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 26, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant relief from the 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).
* * *
“(f) A party waives trial by jury in any of the following ways:
* * *
“(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
As the result of mistake, inadvertence, or neglect, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to make a timely demand for a jury trial. On March 5, 2024, having realized the error, Plaintiff’s counsel posted jury fees with the Court and met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have stipulated that “no prejudice would accrue to any party by the re-setting of this action for jury trial” and that “this action should be re-set for a jury trial on December 26, 2024.”
The Court exercises its discretion and grants Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the waiver of jury trial. The Court re-sets the trial scheduled for December 26, 2024 as a jury trial.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Nikole Marie Omotoy’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial and re-sets the December 26, 2024 trial as a jury trial.
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.