DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2513017·sanbernardino·Civil·Civil
Hearing 1 day agoGRANTED

SHAPIRO PROPERTY SERVICE CORPORATION v. JONATHAN THOMPSON, et al

Motion for Relief from Jury Trial Waiver

Hearing date
Aug 17, 2026
Department
S22
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSHAPIRO PROPERTY SERVICE CORPORATION
DefendantJONATHAN THOMPSON

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING FOR August 17, 2026 Department S22 — JUDGE JANET FRANGIE (SitÝng on Assignment) This Court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.orq) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred during the Pandemic. (See www.sb-court.orq/qeneral-information/remoteaccess). If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difÏculty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-22) at (909) 521- 3529 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear. You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE RULING.

SHAPIRO PROPERTY SERVICE CORPORATION v. JONATHAN THOMPSON, et al

Defendant Jonathan Thompson’s Motion for Relief from Jury Trial Waiver:

The motion is granted. The right to a jury trial in civil actions is guaranteed by the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16) and is unaffected by any corresponding federal right. (Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 279, 293.)

A court may, in its discretion upon just terms, allow a trial by jury, even though there was a waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).) The grounds upon which relief will be granted are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Since the right to a jury trial is constitutional in nature, any doubt must be resolved in favor of upholding the right. (Bishop v. Anderson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 821, 823, disapproved on other grounds by TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, 790-791, fn. 10.)

In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766 (TriCoast Builders), the California Supreme Court laid out a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a court may consider in determining whether to relieve a party from jury waiver, i.e., hardship to other parties, the timeliness of the request, the party’s willingness to comply with applicable jury fee obligations, and the party’s reasons for seeking the relief. (Id. at p. 783.)

When the arguments and evidence are fully considered, all factors laid out in TriCoast Builders, supra, 15 Cal.5th 766, weigh in favor of granting relief from jury waiver. Defendant immediately sought relief upon retaining new counsel and the Parties were notified of Defendant’s intention to try the matter before a jury almost six months before the current trial date. Further, Defendant has indicated his willingness to pay the required jury fees, and it is sufficiently demonstrated that Defendant’s initial waiver was inadvertent.

It is immaterial that Defendant has failed to present a declaration from his former attorney to corroborate Defendant’s testimony. Lastly, although Plaintiff argues that it would suffer prejudice if the matter is to be tried before the jury, the purported hardship identified by Plaintiff is not the type of prejudice that would warrant denying relief from waiver. (See Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811 [prejudice not shown by need to prepare motions in limine, enlarged exhibits, and jury instructions unless inadequate time also shown].)

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there would be inadequate time to prepare for a jury trial, as opposed to a court trial, with the current timelines. Jury fees must be posted within ten days of today’s hearing.

Moving party is directed to give notice.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share