Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV29664, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29664    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial filed by Defendants Clemson Distribution, Inc and Juan D. Ruiz.

Tentative

The motion is denied. 

Background

On September 12, 2022, Trudy Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Clemson Distribution, Inc and Juan D. Ruiz (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causes of action arising from an automobile accident occurring on October 9, 2020.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of posting jury fees.

On March 11, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 2, 2024. Defendants filed a reply on April 9, 2024.

Legal Standard

A party waives their right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 631, subd. (f)(5).)  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.”  (Id., 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).) “In exercising such discretion, 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.) When evaluating relief from waiver, the question is whether any other party will suffer prejudice as a result of relief from waiver. (Id.)

Discussion

Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial on the grounds Plaintiff posted her jury fees on February 29, 2024, well more than one year after filing her complaint, and two days before the final status conference. Defendants highlight the trial set on September 13, 2022 in this matter was for a Non-Jury Trial.

Defendants contend they will be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to post jury fees as they will have to wait for a department to hear the jury matter, where as a Court trial would be heard more quickly. (Motion, 6:14-18.) Further, Defendants contend they will have to pay their portion of costs for a jury. (Id., 7:17-18.)  Lastly, a jury trial raises costs of trial to cover jury selection dates, argument on motions in limine, extended trial to accommodate objections, sidebars, jury questions, jury instructions, and deliberation time. (Id., 8:3-6.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Clemson filed a notice of posting jury fees on February 27, 2023. (Mesaros Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s concedes that the late posting of jury fees was due to his own “excusable neglect and inadvertence.” (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel also asserts that Plaintiff should not be denied her Constitutional right to a jury trial in this matter. (Id., ¶ 11.) Lastly, Plaintiff contends there is no real prejudice as the parties were preparing this matter as if for a jury trial including filing joint jury instructions, . (Id., ¶¶ 12, 13.)  

The Court has considered all of the evidence and argument presented by both sides and exercises its discretion to deny the motion to strike and to relieve Plaintiff from waiver of the right to a jury trial.  There is a strong public policy in favor of allowing Plaintiff to have her case tried to a jury, and Defendant has shown little or no undue or unfair prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand.

The Court RELIEVES Plaintiff from waiver of her right to a jury trial.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to give notice.