Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20LBCV00281, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20LBCV00281    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, MOC Products Company, Inc. filed this action against Defendants, Hooman Automotive Group and Hooman Michael Nissani for breach of contract and related claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged breach of an exclusive distribution contract.  Plaintiff filed the complaint on 9/10/19.  The complaint includes causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, account stated, and open book account.  Plaintiff has added numerous defendants as doe defendants in this action, including R&H Automotive Group, Inc., HTL Automotive, Inc., and HNL Automotive, Inc.

On 7/01/22, Defendant Hooman filed the instant motion for relief from waiver of jury trial pursuant to CCP § 631.

2.     Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

a.     Legal Standard

A party may waive a jury trial in a number of ways under CCP § 631(f), including “(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.” Ordinarily, fees are due by the date of the initial Case Management Conference unless one is not scheduled. (CCP § 631, subd. (c).) In that case, fees are due 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint. (Ibid.) 

 “Waiver of jury is not, however, irrevocable.” (Wharton v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 100, 103.)  “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.” (CCP § 631, subd. (g).) “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all ....” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) This is “[a] right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen whether guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by statute, should be jealously guarded by the courts.” (Wharton, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 103 [citing Jacob v. New York (1942) 315 U.S. 752, 752-753].) “Doubts concerning waiver vel non should be resolved in favor of allowing a jury.” (Ibid.) “A trial court abuses its discretion as a matter of law when ‘. . . relief has been denied where there has been no prejudice to the other party or to the court from an inadvertent waiver.” (Id. at 104.)

“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.” (Gann v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1704.) “The prejudice which must be shown from granting relief from the waiver is prejudice from the granting of relief and not prejudice from the jury trial.” (Ibid.) “The mere fact that trial will be by jury is not prejudice per se.” (Johnson–Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811.) 

b.     Merits

In his motion, Defendant Hooman contends that his counsel “inadvertently neglected to post fees to retain the right to a jury trial” based on the mistaken belief that the fees were already posted.  (Motion at pg. 4; Hacobian Decl. ¶ 2-3.)  Defendant Hooman further contends that relief from this waiver is warranted because this waiver is not irrevocable, and Plaintiff would not be prejudiced as trial is currently set for October 24, 2022.  (Motion at pg. 4.) On June 24, 2022, Defendant Hooman posted jury fees. (Hacobian Decl. ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have engaged in various delay tactics by failing to comply with the discovery referee’s and the Court’s order to appear at deposition and to provide verified responses to requests for production.  (Opposition at pg. 4-5.)  Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Hooman has not shown that excusable inadvertence to allow relief from his failure to timely post jury fees because the parties have attended several case management conferences, and Defendant Hooman did not previously raise this issue. (Opposition at pg. 5.)  Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Hooman has been dilatory.  (Id.)  Furthermore, Plaintiff argues it would be prejudiced if Defendant Hooman’s request is granted because the preparation for jury trial would involve the expenditure of considerable time, costs, and resources. (Opposition at pg. 6; Cherazaie Decl. ¶ 8.)

In reply, Defendant Hooman maintains that a jury trial is a fundamental right that should not be denied unless there is a showing of prejudice to all parties.  (Reply at pg. 5, relying on Johnson-Stovall v. Sup.Ct. (A-M Homes, Inc.) (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811.)  Furthermore, Defendant Hooman argues that Plaintiff would not suffer any prejudice because there is adequate time to prepare for jury trial. (See Johnson-Stovall, supra, 17 Cal.App.4^th at 811; see also Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Ass'n v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638-639.)

Upon review of the arguments before the Court, there is sufficient evidence to grant Defendant Hooman’s request. First, as represented by his counsel, she was under the mistaken impression that jury fees had already been posted in this action. (Hacobian Decl. ¶ 3.)  Thus, despite Plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary, the passage of several case management conferences before seeking relief from waiver is not dispositive. Moreover, in terms of prejudice, Plaintiff has failed to show that there is inadequate time to prepare for a jury trial. The fact that further expenses and resources must be expended to prepare for trial is not a sufficient to deny relief pursuant to CCP § 631. (See Johnson-Stovall, supra, 17 Cal.App.4^th at 811; see also Griffin, supra, (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638-639.)

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant Hooman’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial because it is a fundamental right and Plaintiff will not be prejudiced.

3.     Conclusion

The motion for relief from waiver of jury trial is granted. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.