78 Cal.App.5th 435
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2016 plaintiff Joseph Amato listed and sold his Rancho Mirage home through broker Steve Downs; Amato alleged Downs acted as dual agent and misled him about buyer’s plans, resulting in a $750,000 sale he later claimed was undervalued.
- Amato (an attorney) sued Downs and Coldwell Banker in 2017 asserting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, elder abuse, and rescission of the listing agreement.
- Trial was set for December 2019/January 2020 under Riverside Superior Court Local Rule 3401, which requires pretrial exchange and jointly-prepared documents signed by lead counsel.
- On the first day of trial Amato submitted an incomplete binder and had not produced joint documents to defense counsel; the court deemed Amato to have waived his jury trial for violating Rule 3401, denied his oral recusal request, and proceeded to a bench trial.
- After Amato presented his case the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 631.8. Amato appealed, arguing erroneous deprivation of his jury right and other trial errors.
- The Court of Appeal reversed solely on the ground the trial court lacked authority to treat the local-rule violation as a waiver of the constitutional/statutory right to a jury trial and also failed to provide required prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to comply with local Rule 3401 may waive a party’s right to jury trial | Amato: waiver requires statutory methods; Rule 3401 noncompliance cannot effect waiver | Defendants: local-rule sanctions may include denial of jury and this sanction was proper | Waiver of jury by local-rule violation is invalid; statutory means in Code Civ. Proc. § 631 are exclusive. |
| Whether court afforded required prior notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing sanction | Amato: court gave no prior notice or meaningful hearing before deeming waiver | Defendants: sanction was warranted by rule violation and authority to impose sanctions | Court failed to give prior notice/opportunity as required by Gov’t Code § 575.2; procedural defect. |
| Whether the erroneous denial of jury trial was harmless because plaintiff later lost on the merits | Amato: denial of jury trial is reversible per se; merits irrelevant | Defendants: any error harmless because plaintiff failed to prove his case at bench trial | Erroneous denial of jury trial is reversible per se; no prejudice showing required. |
| Whether the trial judge should have recused from acting as trier of fact after participating in settlement conference | Amato: judge’s participation in settlement made him unsuitable as trier of fact | Defendants: judge properly declined to recuse | Court did not resolve recusal issue on appeal (moot after reversal); district court may address on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooks v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.3d 723 (statutory methods for jury waiver are exclusive)
- Chen v. Lin, 42 Cal.App.5th Supp. 12 (failure to prepare for trial is not a statutory method to waive jury)
- Van de Kamp v. Bank of America, 204 Cal.App.3d 819 (striking jury right by local rule is reversible error per se)
- In re Estate of Robinson, 106 Cal. 493 (erroneous refusal of jury demand requires reversal; merits at bench trial irrelevant)
- Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties, LLC, 40 Cal.App.5th 1 (erroneous denial of jury trial is reversible per se)
- Valley Crest Landscape Dev., Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., 238 Cal.App.4th 468 (denial of jury trial is reversible per se)