Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: BC688607, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC688607 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 29
LaFianza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
BC688607
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury
Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On December 28, 2017, Anne Lafianza (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through
25. On February 7, 2018, Defendant filed an answer, a Demand for Jury Trial,
and a Notice of Posting Jury Fees. On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice
of Posting Jury Fees.
On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for order
granting relief from potential waiver of trial by jury. Defendant filed an
opposition on August 14; in the opposition, Defendant stated (apparently for
the first time) that it was withdrawing its demand for a jury trial. Plaintiff filed a reply on August 21.
On August 16, an ex parte application for an order
granting relief from waiver of jury trial was denied without prejudice.
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
As Plaintiff concedes, Plaintiff
waived the right to a jury trial by not timely posting jury fees. (Hernandez
Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel has
submitted a declaration under oath stating that the waiver was
inadvertent. (Id.) Although Defendant questions that statement,
the Court has considered all of the relevant facts and circumstances, finds the
statement of Plaintiff’s counsel credible, and credits it.
The length of the delay in
posting fees was substantial – almost two years. The further delay in bringing this motion (more
than three additional years) is also substantial. Nonetheless, there is no indication or
evidence (direct or indirect) 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. To the contrary, the
Court’s orders indicate that this matter was set for a jury trial, and the
parties jointly submitted jury instructions in October 2022 and September 2023.
The Court finds that the
waiver was inadvertent. 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
Defendant’s arguments in opposition to the motion do not establish any undue or
unfair prejudice. Instead, Defendant argues a court trial would not prejudice
either party. However, that is not the question; the question is
whether granting the motion for relief from waiver would cause any unfair
prejudice to Defendant. The Court finds
that it would not. Indeed, the actions
of the parties (including filing jury instructions) indicates that both parties
have assumed, for years, that this matter will be tried to a jury.
In sum, the Court finds
that Plaintiff did not timely post jury fees; that in doing so, Plaintiff
waived the right to jury trial; that this waiver was inadvertent; and that
Defendant would not sustain any undue or unfair prejudice from a court order
granting relief from waiver.
After considering the evidence
in the record and the arguments from both sides, the Court exercises its
discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (g), to grant
relief from waiver of trial by jury.
Conclusion
The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver of jury trial.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.