251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691
Cal. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Shepard-Branom sued Diamond for negligence after a car collision; defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages.
- Parties signed a Judicial Council Form EJT-020 consenting to a voluntary expedited jury trial; the form stated the parties "waive all rights to appeal" except as provided by statute.
- A jury awarded $2,450 in past economic damages and nothing for future or noneconomic damages; the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial claiming the damages award was inadequate; the trial court denied the motion.
- Plaintiff appealed; the appellate court took judicial notice of the signed consent order and raised sua sponte whether the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to waiver under the Expedited Jury Trials Act (EJTA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether participation in a voluntary expedited jury trial and the signed consent waive the right to appeal | Waiver was not knowing/voluntary; plaintiff lacked choice and was unaware of appellate waiver | The consent order expressly waived appeals per EJTA; waiver was clear and voluntary | Waiver was express and voluntary; appeal rights were validly waived and appellate jurisdiction is lacking |
| Whether statutory exceptions to waiver (judicial misconduct, juror misconduct, fraud) apply | Argues juror misconduct because jury awarded no noneconomic damages | No juror misconduct shown; award amount alone is not juror misconduct | Exceptions do not apply; plaintiff failed to allege objective, verifiable juror misconduct |
| Whether judicial notice of the consent order was improper | Consent order not part of appellate record; parties unaware | Trial court file is subject to judicial notice; consent order exists and was signed | Court properly took judicial notice of the consent order from trial court file |
| Whether the trial judge coerced waiver by presenting expedited trial as mandatory | Contends judge pressured parties and presented no real choice | Record shows voluntariness, multiple references to "voluntary," and plaintiff did not move to terminate consent | No coercion: waiver not improperly procured; party could have moved to terminate but did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (1994) (appellate court must raise jurisdictional defects on its own motion)
- Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, 4 Cal.5th 260 (2018) (right to appeal is statutory)
- Ruiz v. California State Automobile Assn. Inter-Insurance Bureau, 222 Cal.App.4th 596 (2013) (contractual appellate waivers must be express to be effective)
- Guseinov v. Burns, 145 Cal.App.4th 944 (2006) (parties can waive right to appeal but waiver is construed against the waiving party)
- McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 176 Cal.App.3d 480 (1985) (conditions for valid waiver: counsel authority, expressness, absence of coercion)
- Ford v. Bennacka, 226 Cal.App.3d 330 (1990) (juror misconduct requires objective, verifiable evidence of overt acts disregarding law)