Cheung v. Dist. Ct.
| Decision Date | 15 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 42212.,42212. |
| Citation | 124 P.3d 550 |
| Parties | Amy CHEUNG, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK, and the Honorable Jessie Walsh, District Judge, Respondents, and Amber Schlauder, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Bruce D. Schupp, Las Vegas, for Petitioner.
Ronald M. Pehr, Las Vegas, for Real Party in Interest.
Before the Court En Banc.
In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether Nevada's Constitution includes a right to a jury trial in small claims court. We conclude that it does not and therefore issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order that reversed a small claims judgment and remanded the matter for a jury trial.
Amber Schlauder and Amy Cheung were involved in a two-car accident. Cheung retained counsel and sued Schlauder, filing a small claims "Affidavit of Complaint" in the Las Vegas Township Justice Court. Cheung sought $5,000 for medical expenses.
Schlauder retained counsel and filed a motion to "remove" the case "from small claims court to justice's court," so that she could request a jury trial. A small claims referee denied the motion, ruling that removal was not possible because "small claims court" and the justice court are the same court. The referee also found Schlauder liable for Cheung's medical expenses and court costs.
Schlauder then filed a jury trial demand, arguing that she had a constitutional right to a jury trial to test the legitimacy of Cheung's medical expenses. The justice of the peace rejected Schlauder's argument, reviewed Cheung's medical bills and a letter from Cheung's treating physician, and awarded Cheung $5,000 and court costs after Schlauder admitted liability.
Schlauder subsequently appealed to the district court, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a jury trial, reasoning that Schlauder had a constitutional right to trial by jury. Cheung then filed in this court the instant petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, arguing that no constitutional right to a jury trial exists in a small claims action. Schlauder answered the petition.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an "office, trust or station"1 or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.2 A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is available to ensure that a district court operates within its jurisdiction.3
As a writ petition seeks an extraordinary remedy, we will exercise our discretion to consider such a petition only when there is no "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law"4 or there are either urgent circumstances or important legal issues that need clarification in order to promote judicial economy and administration.5 Here, Cheung cannot appeal from the district court's order,6 and whether there exists a right to a jury trial in a small claims action is an issue of first impression that impacts judicial economy and administration. Consequently, the writ petition warrants our consideration.
As recognized by the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (JCRCP), small claims trials are intended to be "informal, with the sole object of dispensing fair and speedy justice between the parties."7 Not surprisingly then, no court rule authorizes a jury trial in a small claims action. There are also no formal pleadings or discovery mechanisms. Similarly, Title 6 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which also governs justice court procedure, contains no provision for a jury trial in a small claims action.8
Preliminarily, we note that the lack of a statutory or rule-based mechanism for obtaining a jury trial does not impact a plaintiff. Any jury trial rights held by a plaintiff are not infringed by a bench trial in a small claims action because the plaintiff could have pursued recovery from a jury in a justice court civil action.9 But a small claims defendant has no similar election by way of removal to another court, transfer to a different docket, or appeal to the district court.10 Consequently, we focus on whether a small claims defendant has a constitutional jury trial right.
The Nevada Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury and that the jury trial right shall remain inviolate forever.11 The jury trial right, however, applies as it did under the common law in existence at the adoption of the Nevada Constitution in 1864.12 As this court, in Aftercare of Clark County v. Justice Court, recently clarified, "Nevada's jury trial right is defined by English common law as modified at the time of the Nevada Constitution's adoption."13 This court further observed that the phrase "shall remain inviolate" means "to perpetuate the jury trial right as it was understood when the Nevada Constitution was adopted."14 Therefore, the right to a jury trial is a purely historical question, to be determined like any other social, political, or legal fact.15
When reviewing the historical aspects of jury trial rights, "most states look to the jury trial practice in their own territory or colony before statehood, in addition to the English practice, recognizing that the course of the common law may have been modified by territorial or colonial statute."16 This court adopted a broader approach in Aftercare, concluding that "Nevada's jury trial right is based on an 1864 version of the English common law as statutorily modified in this country."17 Based on an examination of the common law's history at the time of the adoption of the Nevada Constitution, this court concluded in Aftercare "that the Nevada constitutional guaranty of trial by jury covers justice's court civil actions even when small amounts are in controversy."18 The Aftercare court noted, however, that a different conclusion may be warranted in small claims actions.19
In reaching its decision, the Aftercare court made four observations about the right to a jury trial in justice court at the time of the founding of our great state. First, in 1861, Nevada's territorial legislature mandated jury trials in justice court for factual issues, without regard to any minimum monetary threshold.20 Second, the omission of a threshold in our State Constitution was not for lack of a model, given that the United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment and Utah's territorial laws impressed a twenty-dollar minimum threshold.21 Third, during the Nevada constitutional convention, the right to a jury trial in justice court seemed to be an unchallenged assumption.22 And fourth, two states prominent during Nevada's development, California and New York, also allowed justice court jury trials without regard to a minimum monetary threshold.23 None of these observations, however, provide support for extending the right to a jury trial to small claims actions.
Applying the historical test adopted in Aftercare, we note at the outset that the English common law, as statutorily modified in this country in 1864, provided for juryless small claims tribunals.24 In England, "actions for small demands were triable before certain officers having a limited jurisdiction, without a jury."25 The colonies of Massachusetts and New Jersey, for example, provided for juryless small claims tribunals for both the plaintiff and the defendant.26
And in Nevada, there is a fundamental difference between a justice court civil action, existent at the time of statehood, and small claims court, which was created almost sixty years after the adoption of the Nevada Constitution. Established by our Legislature in 1923,27 the small claims court required then, as it still does today, that claims be under a monetary threshold.28 Although justices of the peace are designated by the Legislature to preside over small claims court, in addition to justice court actions, small claims trials are intended to be "informal, with the sole object of dispensing fair and speedy justice between the parties."29 To that end, in small claims court a party is not permitted to conduct depositions or other discovery;30 neither party may obtain attorney fees;31 the plaintiff may not seek any prejudgment collection;32 the proceedings are summary, excusing strict evidence rules;33 and the collection of any judgment may be deferred and otherwise determined by the justice of the peace.34
Thus, the first and second observations made by the court in Aftercare, that a minimum monetary threshold was not historically required for a jury trial in justice court actions, is inapplicable to small claims court. Summary small claims actions like those established in 1923 simply did not exist in Nevada in 1864 and thus were not considered during the adoption of the State Constitution.35
The third observation in Aftercare, that the delegates simply assumed that the right to a jury trial existed in justice court actions, can be distinguished from small claims actions because that summary procedure was not considered by the delegates as part of the justice court system at the time of the constitutional convention. The delegates to the constitutional convention in 1864 did not discuss jurisdictional monetary threshold for justice court actions in the context of one's right to a jury trial in justice court. Rather, the delegates debated excluding from the jurisdiction of the justice court claims involving title to real property. The removal of the proposed monetary threshold was in response to the concern of some delegates that real property may increase in value, rendering any minimum limit ineffective for jurisdictional purposes. We should, therefore, recognize the intent of our founders, at the time of the ratification of the Nevada Constitution, with regard to the right to a jury trial in justice court. Their decision to omit any monetary threshold was based on concerns relating to the jurisdiction of the justice courts in civil actions, not on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McDonald v. City of Chi.
-
State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
...legal issues that need clarification in order to promote judicial economy and administration.” Cheung v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 869, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). This petition raises important legal issues potentially affectin......
-
Gonzalez-Oyarzun v. Caribbean City Builders, Inc.
...apply with equal force at the state level. See McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3046 (citing Cheung v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 124 P.3d 550 (2005)) (“As a result of Bombolis, cases that would otherwise fall within the Seventh Amendment are now tried without a jury in state small cl......
-
Gonzalez-Oyarzun v. Caribbean City Builders, Inc.
...Bill of Rights guarantees apply with equal force at the state level. See McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3046 (citing Cheung v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 124 P.3d 550 (2005) ) (“As a result of Bombolis, cases that would otherwise fall within the Seventh Amendment are now tried witho......