Munoz v. Silva

Filed 5/23/13

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICAL REPORTS

This opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order the case transferred to the court on the court’s own motion under rules 8.1000-8.1018.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LUCIA MUNOZ, ) BV 030037 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Central Trial Court ) v. ) No. 12U06237 ) ELVA SILVA, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) OPINION AND JUDGMENT )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Central Trial Court, Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge. Reversed. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Daniel J. Bramzon and Sarah Truesdell Shipitsyna of BASTA, Inc. for Defendant and Appellant. * * * Defendant and tenant Elva Silva appeals the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and landlord Lucia Munoz. Defendant contends that the trial court deprived her of her constitutional right to a trial by jury. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.

1

BACKGROUND1 On May 16, 2012, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant. On May 29, 2012, defendant filed her answer, a demand for jury trial and a Request to Waive Court Fees. The waiver was granted but it did not include a waiver of jury fees and expenses. On May 30, 2012, the court granted defendant’s Request to Waive Additional Court Fees that specifically included jury fees and expenses. On July 6, 10, and 11, 2012, the cause was called for a jury trial.2 With regard to the jury fee issue, the record of the oral trial proceedings as certified by the trial court provides as follows: “The Court asks Defense Counsel if the jury fees had been posted as requested by the Court Clerk. Defense Counsel again reiterates that there is no need to post jury fees since the fee waiver for additional expenses, which dealt with the jury expenses, had been granted. The Court demands that jury fees be posted by 12:00 pm. The Court declares that the matter will become a bench trial if fees are not posted. Defense Counsel again reiterates that the jury fees have been waived by the appropriate waiver and that the courthouse is no longer refunding any posted jury fees. Defense Counsel informs the Court Clerk, around 12:00 pm, that the courthouse has not been refunding the posted jury fees even after the appropriate fee waivers have been granted because of a June 27th order on advanced jury fees. Trial recommenced at 1:30 pm and the Court finds that the jury trial has been waived because the fees were not posted.” The record, as certified by the trial court, further provides that: “The Court stated that the Court Administration policy regarding jury fees at the time this case came to trial was that each party demanding a jury trial must deposit advance jury fees with the clerk at least 5 (five) days before trial for unlawful detainer cases, regardless if a fee waiver was granted, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 631(b). Requests for refunds for the posted fees due to the 1 We limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to the issue raised on appeal. 2 According to the Register of Actions, on June 15, 2012, the court issued and mailed a notice of trial indicating that a “non-jury trial” was set for June 27, 2012. The Clerk’s Minutes reflect that the cause was called for a jury trial on July 6, 2012.