Nicole Denise Griggs vs Cottage Health et al

Case Number

21CV04146

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/30/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: for Demand of Jury Trial

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiff demanding a jury trial is denied. The clerk of the court is directed to give notice of this ruling.

Background:

On October 18, 2021, plaintiff Nicole Denise Griggs, in propria persona, filed an original complaint in this medical malpractice action against defendant Cottage Health. On February 17, 2022, without any response to the original complaint having been filed, plaintiff Griggs filed a first amended complaint (the FAC), also in propria persona.

On March 25, 2022, Cottage Health filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC, which the court granted in part and denied in part. (See June 24, 2022, Minute Order.)

On July 7, 2022, Cottage Health filed an answer to the FAC, as stricken, generally denying its allegations and asserting fifteen affirmative defenses.

On November 17, 2023, the court entered a minute order scheduling a trial confirmation conference on April 5, 2024. Following the trial confirmation conference on April 5, 2024, the set the matter for a four day court trial beginning on November 12, 2024. (See Apr. 5 & 9, 2024, Orders.)

Court records reflect that plaintiff did not make an appearance at the court trial on November 12, 2024. The court reset a trial confirmation conference on December 6, 2024. (See Nov. 12, 2024, Minute Order.)

At the December 6, 2024, trial confirmation conference, the court set the matter for trial on June 9, June 10, June 11, and June 12, 2025. (See Dec. 6, 2024, Minute Order.)

On March 5, 2025, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Demand Of Jury Trial”, in which plaintiff states that she is “petitioning this court to demand that she receives a Jury Trial as she initially requested on February 18, 2022 in the Case Management Statement to this court since the right to a jury trial is protected under the Seventh Admendment [sic].” (Mar. 5, 2025, “Motion” at p. 1, ll. 23-26.)

Court records reflect that Cottage Health has not filed an opposition to the present motion.

Analysis:

Assuming without deciding for present purposes that the notice of the present motion is code compliant and appropriate (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1010 [setting forth requirements for a notice of a motion]; Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 137-138 [discussing purpose of notice requirements]), a memorandum submitted in support of a motion “must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).)

Apart from generally demanding a jury trial, the present motion does not include a memorandum setting forth any legal or factual arguments or a description of any evidence relied on by plaintiff, as required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113. “The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion … is not meritorious and cause for its denial….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).)

The record also does not reflect that the present motion was served on Cottage Health in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, or any other statutes or rules providing for electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(a); see also Campanella v. Takaoka (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 504, 515, disapproved on another ground in Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 346 [trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to dismiss where notice procedures were not followed].) For these and all further reasons discussed above, there exists sufficient justification to deny the motion on procedural grounds.

Even if the court were to consider the present motion notwithstanding the deficiencies noted above, the court would deny the motion for all reasons discussed herein.

Though court records reflect that plaintiff requested a jury trial by checking box “5” of the case management statement filed by plaintiff on February 14, 2022, the court has no record showing that plaintiff timely paid the nonrefundable jury fee of one hundred fifty dollars required under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (b). In addition, on March 12, 2025, the court denied plaintiff’s request to waive additional court fees, including jury fees, noting that the court “need not fund the litigation of private citizens.” (Mar. 12, 2025, Order on Court Fee Waiver, § 4(b)(2).) For these reasons, the record reflects that plaintiff has waived trial by jury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (f)(5).)

Moreover, though Cottage Health filed a notice of the posting of Cottage Health’s jury fees on May 5, 2022, “[p]ayment of the fee by a party on one side of the case shall not relieve parties on the other side of the case from waiver pursuant to subdivision (f).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (b); TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, 778.)

As the motion is procedurally deficient, and considering that available information and evidence shows that plaintiff has waived trial by jury, the court will deny the present motion for all reasons further discussed above. The court will direct the clerk to give notice of this ruling.