Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV12774, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12774 Hearing Date: March 15, 2023 Dept: 55
Date of Hearing:
#
Notice:
No
Opposition filed by Defendant KSJV First Equity, Inc.
MP: Plaintiff, Juan Luis Hernandez
RP:
None.
Summary
On April 15, 2022, Juan
Luis Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint
against KSJV First Equity, Inc., Superior Plantscapes, and Does 1 through 20
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging the following causes of action: (1)
Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (2) Retaliation in
Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination
and Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(k); (4) Retaliation in
Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12945.2 et seq.; (5) Failure to Provide Reasonable
Accommodations in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (6) Failure to
Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940
et seq.; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (8)
Failure to Permit Inspection of Personnel and Payroll Records. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Plaintiff was
an employee of Defendants, during which time he was subject to discrimination
on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated.
On May 20, 2022,
Defendant KSJV First Equity, Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed an Answer.
On September 13, 2022,
Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing Superior Plantscapes as a
party to this action.
On February 17, 2023,
Plaintiff filed the present Motion For Order For Relief From Order Waiving Jury
Trial. There has been no opposition
filed by Defendant.
MP
Position
Plaintiff, moving party,
requests an Order granting relief from waiver of jury trial, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 631. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 631.)
·
Plaintiff contends he inadvertently failed
to pay the requisite jury deposit fee prior to the date of the initial case
management conference, causing Plaintiff’s right to a jury to be waived.
·
Plaintiff argues an Order granting relief
from this inadvertent waiver of jury trial is warranted because Plaintiff’s
failure to pay the aforementioned jury deposit fee was inadvertently caused by
a clerical error of his counsel of record.
·
Plaintiff additionally argues Defendant
will not suffer prejudice in the event the Court grants the relief requested
because Defendant has ample time to prepare for a jury trial, as opposed to a
bench trial, considering the trial date in this action is over nine months away
on December 4, 2023.
·
Plaintiff, furthermore, states Plaintiff
timely made the present request for relief.
Plaintiff reserved a hearing date for the present motion for relief
within days of the waiver.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby grants Plaintiff relief from
waiver of jury trial.
The right to a jury trial
is guaranteed by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 16.) The right to a jury trial is “preserved to
the parties inviolate” and, therefore, may only be waived in certain enumerated
circumstances provided within Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision
(f). (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd.
(a).) Relevantly, Code of Civil
Procedure section 631, subdivision (f) provides, one circumstance in which a
party may waive trial by jury is where a party “fail[s 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, subd. (f)(5).) Code of Civil
Procedure section 631, subdivision (b) requires the party demanding a trial by
jury must pay a nonrefundable fee of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) “on
or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the
action”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd.
(b), (c).)
“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, subd. (g).) “In exercising
discretion, a trial court may consider delay in rescheduling the trial for
jury, lack of funds, timeliness of the request, and prejudice to all the
litigants.” (McIntosh v. Bowman
(1984) 151 Cal.App.3rd 357, 365.) “[T]he
denial of a jury trial after waiver where no prejudice is shown to the other
party or to the court is prejudicial.” (Byram
v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, 654.) “It is settled that in case of doubt, the
issue should be resolved in favor of preserving a litigant's constitutional
right to a trial by jury.” (Oakes v.
McCarthy Co. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 231, 265.)
The Court observes
Plaintiff waived his right to trial by jury by failing to pay the requisite fee
by the date of the initial case management conference on September 26,
2022. (Afgani Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court’s case management conference order
indicated the trial int his action would be a “Non-Jury Trial”. However, following a consideration of the
circumstances, the Court concludes Plaintiff may be appropriately granted
relief from the waiver of the right to jury trial, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 631, subdivision (g).
(Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).)
Initially, the Court observes Plaintiff’s waiver was caused by a
clerical error which caused Plaintiff’s counsel to miss the initial case
management conference and fail to post the requisite fee by the statutory
deadline. (Afgani Decl., ¶ 5.) Furthermore, the Court observes, following
the aforementioned waiver, Plaintiff moved promptly and diligently in an effort
to obtain relief from the waiver, reserving a hearing date upon the present
motion only nine (9) days after the initial case management conference. (Id., ¶ 6.) Additionally, the Court finds no conceivable
prejudice may be faced by Defendant in the event the requested relief was permitted. From the inception of this action,
Defendant’s reading of the Complaint would have revealed Plaintiff’s intent to
try this action by jury, as opposed to a bench trial, as the first page of
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint unequivocally states, “DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL”. (Compl., at p. 1.) Also, the trial date in this action is not
scheduled for another nine (9) months on December 4, 2023. Defendant has ample time to tailor argument
and evidence to accommodate a trial by jury.
The Court, additionally, notes Defendant has not filed an Opposition to
the present motion.
Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
*IF PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S
TENTATIVE, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*