Daily Blast April 12, 2017

This week, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion analyzing whether an order denying jury trial is reviewable by extraordinary writ prior to trial and whether a plaintiff has a statutory right to jury trial under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, subdivision (g) (“section 1278.5(g)”). In Shaw v. Superior Court (Apr. 10, 2017, S221530) __ Cal.5th __, the court held that (1) an order denying jury trial is reviewable by writ of mandate and (2) there is no right to a jury trial for a retaliatory termination action brought under section 1278.5(g). (Id. at p. 1.)

The plaintiff brought a health care facility whistleblower action against her former employer pursuant to section 1278.5(g). (Slip opn., pp. 1-2.) The trial court determined that plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial on this cause of action because it was an equitable claim with equitable remedies to be determined by the court. (Id. at p. 4.) Prior to trial, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal challenging the court’s order denying jury trial. (Id. at p. 5) The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted review to answer two questions: (1) whether an order denying a jury trial is reviewable before trial by extraordinary writ, and (2) whether the plaintiff had a right to a jury trial in an action based on section 1278.5(g). (Ibid.)

On the first question, the Supreme Court held that an order denying a request for a jury trial in a civil action is reviewable prior to trial by petition for extraordinary writ. (Slip opn., pp. 1, 32.) The court held that “‘any acts that exceed the defined power of a court’ . . . are properly considered to be ‘in excess of jurisdiction’ for purposes of review by extraordinary writ.” (Id. at p. 9, quoting Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 291.) Therefore, denial of a request for jury trial is reviewable prior to trial by extraordinary writ because if a court denies a jury trial when a state constitution or statute affords such a right, the court would be exceeding its defined power. (Slip opn., p. 9.)

On the second question, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not have a right to a jury trial in an action under section 1278.5(g). (Slip opn., p. 1.) The court held that based on the language and legislative history the statute, the Legislature intended that a section 1278.5(g) action be decided by a court rather than a jury, even when a plaintiff seeks damages as well as equitable remedies. (Id. at pp. 15, 20, 25.) The court further concluded that any constitutional right plaintiff may have to a jury trial on this cause of action was adequately protected by her right to bring a civil “Tameny” action for retaliatory termination. (Id. at pp. 27-31, citing Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 176-177.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate