Court Opinion

ID: 9754615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:07:46.037535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:53.173326
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/28/23 SMR Services v. Klomp CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

SMR SERVICES, LLC,                                             2d Civ. No. B320075
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 56-2018-
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                00509082-CU-FR-VTA)
                                                                (Ventura County)
v.

DARYL KLOMP,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      Daryl Klomp contends the trial court erred in denying him
a jury trial. Klomp waived a jury trial by deliberately refusing to
appear for trial. (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 631, subd. (f)(1).) The trial
court awarded judgment in favor of SMR Services, LLC (SMR).
We affirm the judgment.

         1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.
                                FACTS
       In December 2014, SMR contracted with Klomp to repair
SMR’s water truck. The total contract price was $15,988.75.
SMR gave Klomp a $10,000 deposit. By 2018, with the repairs
still not completed, SMR took the truck back.
       In March 2018, SMR sued Klomp alleging the repairs were
not completed; the repairs that were performed were negligently
done; Klomp removed parts, and damaged the truck, and refused
to return the $10,000 deposit. The complaint alleged SMR was
damaged in the amount of $80,511.25.
       In February 2020, the trial court sent notice to the parties
that a mandatory appearance, case management conference, was
set for April 10, 2020. The notice provided that at least one party
demanding a jury trial must post a jury fee of $150 “on or before
the date scheduled for the initial Case Management Conference.”
The notice warned that failure to post the fee waives a jury trial.
       The April 10, 2020, case management conference was never
held. The courts closed from March 16 to June 10, 2020, due to
Covid-19.
       In July 2021, the trial court sent a notice of a trial setting
conference for August 10, 2021. By August 10, no jury fees had
been posted. At the conference the court told Klomp that if he
posted the fees that day, it would determine at the next
conference whether the case would proceed by jury trial. Klomp
posted the fees.
       On February 24, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the
issue of jury trial waiver. The court found that a jury trial had
been waived, but requested further briefing on whether it should
grant Klomp relief from waiver. The court stated that if it
decides to grant relief, a jury trial will be reset. If the court does

                                  2
not grant relief, a court trial will commence at 10:00 a.m. on
March 8, 2022.
       The trial court held a hearing on the question of granting
relief on March 7, 2022. The court decided not to grant relief.
The court reasoned that section 631 requires a $150 jury fee to be
paid on or before the day scheduled for the first case management
conference, not the date the case management conference is
actually held. The fee could not be deposited on that date
because the court was closed. But there was no reason for not
depositing the fee once the court reopened. Thus a jury trial was
waived pursuant to section 631, subdivision (f)(5).
       The trial court decided not to grant relief from default
citing prejudice to the court and SMR. The court stated that it
had held the next two days open for a court trial. Given the
number of cases on the court’s calendar, the court did not know
when a jury trial could be held. The court cited the cost and
difficulties of perpetually preparing for a case that does not go to
trial. That is a form of prejudice to the plaintiff. The court
ordered the parties to appear for a two-day court trial the next
day, March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.
       On March 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m., we received Klomp’s
petition for a writ of mandate, seeking a stay of the trial on the
grounds that the trial court had improperly found a waiver of a
jury trial and improperly denied relief from the waiver.
       Neither Klomp nor his counsel appeared for trial court on
March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., as ordered, nor did they contact
opposing counsel. The court waited until 10:19 a.m. when it
received our order summarily denying Klomp’s petition for a writ
of mandate. A court trial proceeded without Klomp or his

                                 3
counsel. The court entered judgment in favor of SMR in the
amount of $80,500.
                             DISCUSSION
                           I. Waiver of Jury
       Klomp contends the trial court erred in concluding that he
waived his right to a jury trial and abused its discretion in
refusing relief from waiver.
       Section 631 provides in part:
       “(a) The right to a trial by jury as declared by Section 16 of
Article I of the California Constitution shall be preserved to the
parties inviolate. In civil cases, a jury may only be waived
pursuant to subdivision (f).
       “(b) At least one party demanding a jury on each side of
a civil case shall pay a nonrefundable fee of one hundred fifty
dollars ($150), unless the fee has been paid by another party on
the same side of the case . . . .
       “(c) The fee described in subdivision (b) shall be due on or
before the date scheduled for the initial case management
conference in the action [¶] . . . [¶]
       “(f) A party waives trial by jury in any of the following
ways: ¶ (1) By failing to appear at the trial.”
       We need not discuss whether the trial court erred in
finding waiver under section 631, subdivision (c), or abused its
discretion in refusing to grant relief from default. Klomp and his
counsel deliberately refused to appear at trial. Klomp claims the
reason he did not appear is because he wanted to preserve his
right to a jury. But failing to appear waives rights; it does not
preserve them. (See Breslin v. Breslin (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th
801.) Section 631, subdivision (f)(1), expressly provides that a
party waives a trial by jury by failing to appear at trial. A party

                                  4
who objects to a proceeding without a jury does not waive his
right to a jury trial by going to trial by the court. (Mechler v.
Superior Court (1927) 85 Cal.App. 353, 354.) The question may
be reviewed on appeal of the judgment. (Ibid.) Even if the trial
court had erred in concluding Klomp waived his right to a jury by
failing to promptly post fees, Klomp waived his right to a jury by
refusing to appear for trial.
                             II. Sanctions
       SMR requests sanctions against Klomp’s counsel for a
frivolous appeal.
       “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal
was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on
appeal such damages as may be just.” (§ 907.) An appeal is
frivolous only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive – to
harass the respondent or delay enforcement of a judgment – or
when it indisputably has no merit – when any reasonable
attorney would conclude the appeal is completely without merit.
(In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) Sanctions
for a frivolous appeal should be used only in the clearest of cases.
(Ibid.)
       This appeal qualifies as frivolous. While this appeal was
pending, Klomp’s counsel died. There is no longer a basis for an
award of sanctions.
       We disagree with the concurring opinion that posits
Klomp’s appeal is not frivolous. Although we may agree with the
holding in Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties LLC (2019) 40
Cal.App.5th 1, 11, one significant fact in Mackovska distinguishes
it beyond compare with the instant case. Mackovska showed up
for trial. Klomp did not. His appeal is frivolous.

                                 5
                        DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the
Respondent.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  GILBERT, P. J.

I concur:

            YEGAN, J.

                              6
BALTODANO, J., Concurring:
       I concur in the judgment because Klomp failed to appear at
his trial and failing to appear waives rights. (See Breslin v.
Breslin (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 801, 807.) However, I do not
believe this appeal is frivolous considering the trial court’s
finding of prejudice when it denied Klomp relief from his jury
waiver. (See, e.g., Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties LLC
(2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1, 11 [“prejudice from having to try the
case to a jury is not prejudice for purposes of a motion for relief
from a jury trial waiver”].)
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                              BALTODANO, J.
                    Mark S. Borrell, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Ferguson, Case, Orr, Paterson, and Wendy Cole Lascher;
Law Offices of Pauline White and Pauline White for Defendant
and Appellant.
      Shane, Digiuseppe & Rodgers and Stephen A. Digiuseppe
for Plaintiff and Respondent.