Johnson-Stovall

Johnson-Stovall v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE CTY.

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 4th 808·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 791·21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494·93 Daily Journal DAR 9909·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5833
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 1993G014378California1,356 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

Once again we address a question which comes before us all too frequently—the right of a litigant to a jury after failing to post fees in a timely manner. We start with an admonition from Estate of Meeker (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1106 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 ]: “[W]e need to remember that all of us are here to serve the public and that this cannot be done when judges are inundated with fast-track statistics and cheerleader attitudes about case disposition numbers which never seem to take into account the rights of the parties.”

Here are the facts. The plaintiff sued numerous defendants over a transaction involving the sale of her home. The litigation followed a normal path of pleadings, motions and discovery. In due course and in accordance with the local rules of procedure, a “joint case management statement” was filed. That statement included plaintiff’s request for a jury trial which was subsequently set for June 14, 1993.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (a)(5), fees must be posted at least 25 days prior to the trial date. They were not. The last day on which plaintiff should have posted fees was May 20,1993. The court then mailed a notice of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.