Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV11009, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11009    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 29

Vazquez v. Doe Driver
21STCV11009
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 22, 2021, Emmanuel Vazquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Doe Driver, and Does 1 through 100 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on March 25, 2019. The complaint included a demand for jury trial.

On September 30, 2021, Lyft filed an answer and demand for jury trial.

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name John Agyepong (“Agyepong”) as Doe Driver. On April 21, 2023, Agyepong filed his answer with a demand for jury trial.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice of posting jury fees.

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order granting relief from potential waiver of trial by jury. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) “In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.” (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 631 is the primary statute addressing waiver of a jury trial in a civil case. Under section 631, subdivision(f)(5), a party waives their right to a jury trial by not timely posting jury fees. Jury fees must be paid “on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action”; where there is no case management conference, the fees are due “no later than 365 calendar days after the filing of the initial complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (c) & (c)(2).)

“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.” (Id., subd. (g).)

The California Supreme Court recently addressed the exercise of this discretion in TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766. In ruling on a request for relief from waiver of jury trial:

“[T]he primary consideration is … whether granting relief from waiver would result in any hardship to other parties or to the court, such as delay in rescheduling the trial for a jury or inconvenience to witnesses. But courts have also regularly considered other factors, including the timeliness of the request; whether the requester is willing to comply with applicable requirements for payment of jury fees; and the reasons supporting the request.” (15 Cal.5th at pp. 779-780.)

“[T]he presence or absence of hardship is not always dispositive,” and the court may, in its discretion, also consider (among other things) whether the motion for relief from waiver “simply reflects a belated change of heart about trial tactics” or is being used as a “pretext” to obtain a continuance. (Id., at p. 780.) But when a party “has timely given notice that it desires trial by jury” but then loses that right by nonpayment of fees, “lack of hardship to the other parties or the court is generally controlling, absent other factors that weigh against relief.” (Id., at p. 782.)

In ruling on request from relief from waiver under section 631, subdivision (g), “courts are mindful of the requirement ‘to resolve doubts in interpreting the waiver provisions of section 631 in favor of a litigant's right to jury trial.’” (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 638, quoting Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 956.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel states that they inadvertently failed to timely make a post fees for a jury trial. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff untimely posted jury fees on October 19, 2023; there is no indication that this was a deliberate tactical decision, that Plaintiff is having a belated change of heart, or that this is a pretext for a continuance. Inadvertence is a factor that weighs in support of granting the motion.

Although the presence or absence of prejudice is not independently dispositive, the Court notes that no opposition has been filed. Plaintiff contends there is no prejudice as the parties have been preparing for a jury trial. (Id., ¶¶ 3.) The Court notes Lyft demanded a jury trial on September 30, 2021 and Agyepong demanded a jury trial on April 21, 2023.

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not timely post jury fees or demand a jury trial; that in doing so, Plaintiff waived the right to jury trial; that this waiver was inadvertent; and that no party would suffer any undue or unfair prejudice from a court order granting relief from waiver.

After considering all of the evidence in the record, the Court exercises its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (g), to grant relief from waiver and to allow a trial by jury.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.