Crouchman v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 05 July 1988
• Docket Number: S.F. 24952
• Citation: 248 Cal.Rptr. 626,755 P.2d 1075,45 Cal.3d 1167
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 755 P.2d 1075 Joseph CROUCHMAN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Cruz County, Respondent; EL DORADO INVESTORS, Real Party in Interest.

Page 626

248 Cal.Rptr. 626

45 Cal.3d 1167, 755 P.2d 1075

Joseph CROUCHMAN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Cruz County, Respondent EL DORADO INVESTORS, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 24952.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

July 5, 1988.

As Modified Aug. 31, 1988.

Gary B. Wesley, Mountain View, for petitioner.

George Agnost, City Atty., Harold J. McElhinny, Gayle J. Gribble and Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.

No appearance for respondent and real party in interest.

George Brunn, as amicus curiae on behalf of respondent.

Michael A. Kelley, Director of Consumer Affairs by Thomas M. Cecil, Richard A. Elbrecht, Mary-Alice Coleman and John C. Lamb, Sacramento as amici curiae on behalf of real party in interest.

LUCAS, Chief Justice:

We granted review to decide whether a defendant in a small claims action at law for money damages has a right to a jury trial in the de novo proceeding in superior court when he appeals from the small claims court judgment. ¹ We conclude the Court of Appeal, correctly held that the appealing defendant has no right to trial by jury.

I. FACTS

Real party in interest, ² defendant's former landlord, sued in small claims court for money due on the rental contract between it and defendant, and for damages for injury to the property rented to defendant. Possession of the property was not in issue defendant had previously vacated the premises. After trial, the small claims court awarded real party $1,500 plus costs. Defendant appealed to the respondent superior court, to have the action "tried anew." (Code.Civ.Proc., § 117.10; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.) He demanded a jury trial, which the superior court denied. Defendant then unsuccessfully petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to grant him a jury trial. We granted review and retransferred the matter to the Court of Appeal, citing Maldonado v. Superior Court, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 1259, 209 Cal.Rptr. 199. The Court of Appeal again denied defendant's petition for writ of mandate, holding that defendant had no right to trial by jury in his de novo appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Small Claims Procedure

Each justice and municipal court in the state includes a small claims division ( § 116, subd. (a)), which has jurisdiction over claims for the recovery of money when the amount of the demand does not exceed $1,500. ( § 116.2, subd. (a).) The Legislature created small claims courts to provide an accessible judicial forum for the resolution of disputes involving small amounts of money in "an expeditious, inexpensive, and fair manner." ( § 116.1.)

The statutory scheme governing small claims court provides for simplified, informal procedures. ( §§ 116-117.41.) "The chief characteristics of [small claims court] proceedings are that there are no attorneys, no pleadings and no legal rules of evidence; there are no juries, and no formal findings are made on the issues presented. At the hearings the presentation of evidence may be sharply curtailed, and the proceedings are often terminated in a short space of time. The awards--although made in accordance with substantive law--are often based on the application of common sense; and the spirit of compromise and conciliation attends the proceedings." (Sanderson v. Niemann (1941) 17 Cal.2d 563, 573, 110 P.2d 1025.) Attorneys are prohibited from representing litigants in small claims court. ³ ( § 117.4.) The small claims court judge may permit the parties to offer evidence by witnesses outside of the hearing, and may "consult witnesses informally and otherwise investigate the controversy." ( § 117, subd. (a).) The judge is authorized to "give judgment and make such orders" as he "deems to be just and equitable for disposition of the controversy." (Ibid.)

The plaintiff in a small claims action has no right to appeal. ( § 117.8, subd. (a).) The defendant may appeal to the superior court ( § 117.8, subd. (b)), for a trial de novo. ( § 117.10.) This right is limited in that "if the defendant seeks any affirmative relief by way of a claim in the small claims court, he shall not have the right to appeal from the judgment on the claim." ( § 117.8, subd. (b).) The superior court judgment is not appealable. ( § 117.12.)

Section 117.10 directs the Judicial Council to "prescribe by rule the practice and procedure" to be followed in appeals to the superior court in small claims cases. The Judicial Council has accordingly promulgated California Rules of Court, rules 151-158, governing small claims appeals. Under these rules, the trial de novo "shall be conducted informally as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 117 except that attorneys may participate. No tentative decision or statement of decision shall be required." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 155.)

B. Right to Jury in Trial De Novo

1. Small Claims Statute Does Not Provide for Jury Trial.

The Legislature's emphasis on informal and expeditious proceedings makes it clear that it did not contemplate a jury trial in small claims court itself. Indeed, defendant does not dispute this point. (See ante, p. 627 of 248 Cal.Rptr., at p. 1076 of 755 P.2d, fn. 1.) As to the procedure on appeal, no provision of the applicable statute or court rules makes any reference to a jury in the superior court trial de novo.

Amici curiae in support of real party in interest and respondent ⁴ argue that the Legislature intended that jury trials should not be held in small claims appeals. We conclude that they are correct. The governing statutes and rules do not appear to contemplate a jury trial on appeal. First, as stated, the Legislature has never expressly provided for a jury trial in the small claims appeal, although it has the power and ability to do so. (See, e.g., § 1141.20, subd. (b), providing that after judicial arbitration, "[a]ny party may elect to have a de novo trial, by court or jury, both as to law and facts." [Italics added.] )

Second, a jury trial would be manifestly inconsistent with the informal procedures required to be observed on appeal, such as the provision that "[t]he judge may consult witnesses informally and otherwise investigate the controversy," ( § 117, subd. (a)), and the inapplicability of the formal rules of evidence. Section 904.5, within the title governing civil appeals, explicitly states: "Appeals from the small claims court of a municipal court and of a justice court shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5A (commencing with Section 116), Title 1, Part 1 of this code." This section thus refers back to the Small Claims Court statute, including section 117.10, which gives authority to the Judicial Council to prescribe by rule the procedure in small claims appeals. As mentioned above, rule 155 of the California Rules of Court states that section 117 (providing for informal hearing and disposition of small claims actions, allowing the judge to investigate claims independently, etc.) applies to appeals to superior court in small claims cases. In sum, it is apparent that the scheme created by statute and rules requires the superior court trial de novo to be conducted pursuant to the same summary procedures as govern the small claims court itself (except that attorneys may participate). It follows that there is no right to a jury trial at any point in a small claims proceeding under the small claims statute and rules.

2. There Is No Statutory or Constitutional Right to Jury Trial on Appeal From Small Claims Court.

Defendant argues that regardless of the legislative intent underlying the small claims statute, the state Constitution (art. I, § 16) ⁵ and section 592 (generally guaranteeing a trial by jury in legal actions), afford him the right to a jury trial in his appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded defendant has no right to a jury in the trial de novo under either section 592 or the state Constitution. Upon careful consideration of the issue, we conclude that the Court of Appeal was correct. Accordingly, we adopt the following portion of Justice Agliano's opinion for the Court of Appeal in this case, with modifications as indicated: ⁶

Article I, section 16, of the California Constitution provides in pertinent part that "[t]rial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all...." This constitutional right to jury trial "is the right as it existed at common law in 1850, when the Constitution was first adopted, 'and what that right is, is a purely historical question, a fact which is to be ascertained like any other social, political or legal fact.' [Citations.]" (C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d 1, 8-9, 151 Cal.Rptr. 323, 587 P.2d 1136; cf. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal.2d 283, 286-287, 231 P.2d 832.) "The common law at the time theConstitution was adopted includes not only the lex non scripta but also the written statutes enacted by Parliament." (Id., at p. 287, 231 P.2d 832.) "As a general proposition, '[T]he jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity.' [Citations.]" ( C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., supra, 23 Cal.3d 1, 8, 151 Cal.Rptr. 323, 587 P.2d 1136.) But if a proceeding otherwise identifiable in some sense as a "civil action at law" did not entail a right to jury trial under the common law of 1850, then the modern California counterpart of that proceeding will not entail a constitutional right to trial by jury. (Cf. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, supra, 37 Cal.2d 283, 298, 231 P.2d 832; People v. Frangadakis (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 540, 545-546, 7 Cal.Rptr. 776.) And of course there will be no constitutional right to jury trial in special proceedings unknown to the common law of 1850. (Perry Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 448, 464-465, 150 Cal.Rptr. 495; County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1974) 42...