Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV01738, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01738    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: 29

Garfias v. County of Los Angeles
23STCV01738
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

Tentative

The hearing on the motion is continued.

Background

On January 26, 2023, Amayel Garfias (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against County of Los Angeles and Deputy Miguel Leon (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) Assault and Battery, (2) Negligence, (3) Interference with Civil Rights under Civil Code section 52.1, and (4) Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in violation of FEHA (Government Code section 12940 et seq.) causes of action arising out of harassment of Plaintiff starting on December 20, 2021 and continued to January 30, 2022. Plaintiff’s complaint included a demand for a jury trial. (Complaint, p. 18.)

On September 25, 2023, Defendant Miguel Leon filed an answer; On October 25, 2023, County of Los Angeles filed an answer.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of posting jury fees.

On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order granting relief from 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 motion was untimely served by a day as it was served on Defendants electronically on August 13 for September 6 hearing. Papers related to this motion needed to be served on Defendants 16 court days prior to the hearing (August 14) 2024, plus two calendar days for electronic service (August 12, 2024). (See Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1005(b),1010.6(a)(3)(B).)

Therefore, the hearing on the motion is continued.

Conclusion

The hearing on the motion is continued for approximately 14 days.  Moving party to give notice.