Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Sanctions
Here, the initial case management conference was set for February 17, 2026, with instructions in the minute order to post fees by February 24, 2026. By failing to pay the jury fee on or before that date, Plaintiff waived jury trial.
Nevertheless, under subsection (g) "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." The factors for the Court to consider are disputed by each side here. However, the California Supreme Court stated that ""[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." (TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, 779.)
Further, that "[w]hen a party that has timely given notice that it desires trial by jury then loses the jury right because of technical noncompliance with some element of statutory procedure--such as failure to pay jury fees at the right time or in the right amount--lack of hardship to the other parties or the court is generally controlling, absent other factors that weigh against relief." (Id. at 782.)
Further, that "Section 631(g) alleviates the harshness of this result by allowing courts to forgive a party's technical noncompliance when the party has fulfilled the core objective of the statute, which is to give timely notice that a jury is demanded. At least in the absence of countervailing factors, courts have generally granted such forgiveness where to do so would not result in hardship." (Id. at 782-783)
The standard was summarized by the TriCoast opinion as follows: "Must a trial court always grant relief from a jury waiver if proceeding with a jury would not cause hardship to other parties or to the trial court? We conclude that the answer is no; a trial court's discretion is not so constrained. The presence or absence of hardship is always a primary consideration, and it is often dispositive in cases where the litigant has given timely notice that it desires a jury trial and seeks relief from mere technical statutory waiver, such as failure to post the required jury fee at the correct time or in the correct amount. But a request for relief from jury waiver always calls for consideration of multiple factors in addition to hardship, including the timeliness of the request and the reasons supporting the request." (Id. at 773-774.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiffs indicated a jury trial was desired via the complaint and case management conference statement. Here, although under section 631 jury waiver occurred by the failure to timely post fees, Plaintiff thereafter attempted to post fees and filed this motion for relief from waiver. On the other hand, the Court has set a court trial pursuant to its availability. Some hardship exists in rescheduling the trial to include a jury.
"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 Ct. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 956].) Denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto is "both reversible error and an act in excess of jurisdiction." (Olivia N. v. Nat'l Broad. Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 389.)
Given the minimal hardship identified, the waiver's technical nature as to the failure to post fees, the timeliness of the attempt to post fees upon the setting of the court trial, the Court grants the motion.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Lopez, Celedonio vs. Barrera, Rodrigo Toledo Case No.: VCU322807 Date: July 30, 2026
Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman Motion: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Sanctions Tentative Ruling: (1), (3) and (4): To find these motions moot by the responses attached to the opposition; (2) To grant the motion and order responses to Special Interrogatories due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing; to impose sanctions on Defendant Barrera in the amount of $540 due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.
Facts Common to (1) through (4) The Court notes an initial motion filed April 30, 2026 and an amended motion filed May 20, 2026. At the prior hearing on June 2, 2026, the Court continued these motions to this hearing date. On June 1, 2026, Defendant Barrera appears to have filed an opposition to the motion. On June 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second amended motion to compel these initial responses and deem admissions admitted. The second amended motion and declaration indicate service of (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, (3) Requests for Production and (4) Requests for Admissions occurred February 26, 2026 by mail. Plaintiff indicates that, as of the date of the June 10, 2026 filing, no responses have been provided.
The aforementioned June 1, 2026 opposition filed by Defendant Barrera (which the Court will treat as an opposition to the second amended motion), acknowledges the discovery responses were not timely served, but that Defendant "has now prepared verified responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One." The opposition attaches, as Attachment A, verified responses to the requests for admissions, form interrogatories, and requests for production.
The opposition's attachments, however, do not appear to include responses to the special interrogatories. On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a declaration confirming responses were served as to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. However, it appears no responses to Special Interrogatories have been served.
Authority and Analysis (1), (3) and (4) - Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions The Court agrees that no motion to compel initial responses now lies as to the (1) Form Interrogatories, (3) Requests for Production and (4) Requests for Admissions, as Defendant Barrera appears to have provided responses thereto. These motions are rendered moot by the responses.
(2) - Special Interrogatories As noted above, no verified responses to special interrogatories appear to be provided in the opposition or otherwise served on Plaintiff. Based on Defendant's failure to respond to the first set special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Defendant Barrera provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff's first set of special interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after the hearing on these motions.
Sanctions Plaintiff requests $840 in sanctions, consisting of $240 in filing fees ($60 x 4 motions) and $600 in attorneys fees ($300 x 2 hours.) The Court notes there is no meet and confer requirement and all that is necessary to obtain the relief requested on this motion to compel initial responses and deem admissions admitted is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280(c) (Admissions), 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court orders sanctions against Defendant Barrera in the amount of $540, consisting of 1 hour at the $300 rate plus the $240 in filing fees. Sanctions are due within thirty (30) days after the hearing on these motions.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Visalia Division Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared July 29, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR054175 | In the Matter of Garges, Jennie J. | Letters of Administration | Appearance Required | Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4) | VPR054151 | In the Matter of Rudd, Geraldine Shirley |