Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV00561, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00561    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

After reviewing the memorandum and accompanying declaration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for relief from jury trial waiver.

Background

            On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff Owain Yeoman filed this action against Bahar Chathambally and Does 1-10 concerning a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Woodland Hills on January 13, 2020.

            On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for relief from jury trial waiver.  The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff moves pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 631(g). CCP § 631 governs jury trials in civil cases. CCP § 631(a) codifies the constitutional right to jury trial in civil cases as set forth in California Constitution, article I, section 16. CCP § 631(b) requires a party demanding a jury trial to pay a nonrefundable fee of $150.

CCP § 631(f) states that a party may waive a jury trial in a civil case in several ways, including by failing to pay the required fee before the initial case management conference. (CCP § 631(f)(5).) Ordinarily, fees are due by the date of the initial case management conference unless one is not scheduled. (CCP § 631(c).) In that situation when there is no case management conference scheduled, fees are due 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint. (Id.)

“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(g).)

The Rutter Guide on Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 12:325, et seq., explains that relief from failure to timely pay jury fees is favored, and that inadvertent failure to timely pay fees coupled with a timely motion for relief from waiver should be granted absent prejudice to the opposing party.

“Courts have held that, given the public policy favoring trial by jury, the trial court should grant a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party. Where doubt exists concerning the propriety of granting relief from such waiver, this doubt, by reason of the constitutional guarantee of right to jury trial should be resolved in favor of the party requesting trial by jury. 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. 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.” (Gann v. Williams Brothers Realty, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1698, 1703-04 (citations and internal citation marks omitted).)

When exercising discretion to grant relief from jury waiver as noted above, courts consider diverse factors including: delay in rescheduling the trial for jury; lack of funds; timeliness of the request and prejudice to all the litigants; prejudice to the court or its calendar; the reason for the demand, i.e. whether it is merely a pretext to obtain continuances and thus trifle with justice; whether the parties seeking the jury trial will be prejudiced by the court’s denial of relief; and whether the other parties to the action desire a jury trial. (Day v. Rosenthal (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1176.)

Discussion

i. Plaintiff’s failure to pay timely fees was inadvertent and request for relief was timely

Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the complaint for filing with his firm’s eFiling vendor on January 6, 2022. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 2.) Included with the complaint were other initial documents, which included a demand for jury trial. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s staff approved payment to the eFiling vendor for all fees associated with the complaint package, which Plaintiff’s counsel believed would include the first paper filing fee and the $150 advance jury fee deposit. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 2.) However, on March 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed that the initial fees paid by the eFiling vendor did not match what he had seen on other cases where jury fees had been deposited. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 4.) He subsequently instructed his staff to inquire with the eFiling vendor to determine whether they had posted the jury fee deposit at the time the Complaint was filed, and learned that only the initial paper filing fee and not the jury fee deposit was paid at the time of filing. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 4.) Shortly after, on April 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion.

Given the facts above, the court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to pay the jury fee deposit was a mistake and Plaintiff swiftly filed this motion upon learning of the mistake.

ii. Defendant will not suffer prejudice as a result of granting this motion.

Defendant will not be prejudiced by granting this motion for the following reasons. First, Defendant also requested a jury trial. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 7.) Second, the day after learning of the failure to pay the jury fee deposit, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defendant’s counsel regarding the issue and Defendant’s counsel offered to stipulate to provide the relief being requested. (Mayr Declaration ¶ 5.). Third, this motion is unopposed. On these facts, granting this motion will not result in hardship to Defendant. Therefore, the court finds that Defendant will not suffer prejudice as a result of granting this relief.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and as such, the Court orders that the trial in the action be set as a jury trial.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.