Cooks v. Superior Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

By petition for writ of mandate, a defendant in a personal injury action challenges the trial court’s order denying a jury trial due to defense counsel’s failure to submit proposed jury instructions within the

[725]

deadline set by the local “fast-track” rules of court. Petitioner asserts, and respondent and real parties do not deny, that this order was imposed as a sanction because of the failure of petitioner’s counsel to submit jury instructions within the time specified by these rules.

This court stayed trial and issued notice to the parties that it was considering the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance directing respondent, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2, subdivision (b),

1

to reinstate defendant’s jury trial rights and limit imposition of sanctions to defense counsel.

After considering the plenary opposition filed by real party in interest plaintiff", and the reply filed by petitioner, we conclude that respondent clearly abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction under section 575.2, subdivision (b). We grant the peremptory writ.

The underlying personal injury action is a “fast-track” case subject to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Trial Court Delay Reduction Rules, promulgated under authority of Government Code section 68612 and Code of Civil Procedure section 575.1.

Rule 1205(e) of the Los Angeles Superior Court fast-track rules requires parties, when a jury trial has been timely requested, to include proposed jury instructions in the joint issues conference statement. The statement is required to be filed “two court days prior to the Issues Conference.”

Rule 1208, entitled “Sanctions”, authorizes respondent to impose appropriate sanctions against a party “and/or counsel” for failure to comply with the fast-track rules.

In the underlying action, defendant timely requested a jury trial and posted jury fees. However, the parties’ respective counsel subsequently failed to include proposed jury instructions in the joint issues conference statement. At the May 8, 1990, joint issues conference, as a sanction for counsel’s omission, respondent sua sponte ordered defendant’s jury request stricken and ordered a nonjury trial.