Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Cruz

Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, Los Angeles

November 6, 2013

FERNANDO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JACQUELINE CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 13UA0308 Lancaster Trial Court, Carol S. Koppel, Judge.[1]

Daniel J. Bramzon and Matthew L. Brinton of BASTA, Inc., for Defendant and Appellant.

Erik Gunderson of Charlton Weeks, LLP, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

P. McKay, P. J.

In this unlawful detainer matter, defendant Jacqueline Cruz appeals the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Fernando Garcia. The issue on appeal is whether the trial erred when it denied defendant the right to a jury trial after defendant failed to post past-due rent pursuant to the court’s order. We find prejudicial error and, accordingly, reverse the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint against defendant and Aaron Villanueva[2] seeking possession of the residential premises occupied by them. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, defendant and Villanueva were required to pay rent of $850 on January 1, 2013, and failed to do so. He caused them to be served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit, and they failed to either pay rent or vacate the premises as required. Plaintiff sought restitution of the premises, past-due rent in the amount of $850, damages at the rate of $27.95 per day for each day that defendant and Villanueva remained in possession of the premises through the entry of judgment, forfeiture of the lease, reasonable attorney fees, and costs.

Defendant and Villanueva filed a joint answer denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses including that plaintiff breached the implied warranty of habitability and that plaintiff refused to accept the tender of rent payment either prior to service of the notice to quit or during the notice period. On February 13, 2013, defendant and Villanueva demanded a jury trial and on February 20, 2013, each obtained a waiver of jury fees and costs. On February 22, 2013, the clerk gave notice to the parties that a court trial would be held on March 5, 2013. On the scheduled trial date, the cause was called for a jury trial and continued for such to March 21, 2013.

Prior to the trial date, defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment, and the motion was on the court’s March 20, 2013 calendar. The motion was rescheduled for the next court date. The trial court, however, issued an order for defendant to post with the court the “unpaid rent through the end of March in the amount of $2, 550” as well as plaintiff’s court costs of $321. The court gave two reasons for its order -- defendant alleged as a defense that the disputed rent was proffered, and “it appeared inequitable for [plaintiff] to have not been paid rent for as long as the facts in the case indicated....”

On March 21, 2013, the court revised its prior order by striking the requirement that defendant post $321 to cover plaintiff’s court costs, but left unchanged the requirement that defendant post $2, 550 with the court for the unpaid rent. Defendant objected to the court’s order and informed the court that no monies had been posted as ordered. The court ruled that based on the failure to post rent as ordered, the jury trial would be taken off calendar and the matter would proceed immediately to a bench trial.

Thereafter, the cause proceeded to a court trial with plaintiff presenting his case. The defense neither cross-examined plaintiff’s witnesses nor presented any defense. On March 27, 2013, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $2, 286.85 in rent and damages, $5, 000 in attorney fees, $240 in costs, plus restitution and possession of the premises and forfeiture of the lease. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

We find meritorious defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously denied her the right to a jury trial. Unless waived, there is a right to a jury trial in an unlawful detainer matter. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 592, 1171.) “ ‘... California constitutional history reflects an unwavering commitment to the principle that the right to a civil jury trial may be waived only as the Legislature prescribes....’ ” (Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 955.)

As is pertinent to this appeal, a waiver may occur either by the failure to timely demand a jury trial, or by the failure to timely deposit jury fees with the clerk or judge. (Code Civ. Proc. § 631, subd. (f)(4) & (5).)[3] ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.