Opinion
No. 99-3586
March 6, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Proctor Gamble's motion to strike jury. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the defendant's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This personal injury case arises out of an accident that occurred on October 20, 1998. Plaintiff filed suit in the 29th Judicial District Court in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, suing Chemical Leaman Tanklines, Proctor Gamble, Van Camp Trailers and Body, Inc., and Quality Carriers, Inc. Chemical Leaman filed an answer to plaintiff's petition in the 29th Judicial District. Attached to this answer was an proposed order, stating "[l]et this matter be tried by a jury," and providing a space for the amount of a jury bond. The state court executed the order and fixed the bond amount. The case was then removed to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction and docketed as a jury trial in November of 1999. The civil cover sheet marks "Yes" to the question whether there is a jury demand. Trial of this matter is set for March 12, 2000. Defendant Proctor Gamble now moves to strike the jury in this matter on the grounds that a proper jury demand was not made in state or federal court. Both plaintiff and Chemical Leaman oppose the motion to strike the jury, arguing that the request for trial by jury in state court was proper and that it did not have to be repeated in this Court. Alternatively, plaintiff has submitted a request for a trial by jury.
II. DISCUSSION
Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 1733(a), any party may demand a trial by jury by filing a pleading demanding trial by jury. In Louisiana, such a demand need only be a simple written request within the statutory delay that clearly indicates that the party desires a trial by jury. No particular format is required. See Guilbeau v. Mires, 263 So.2d 903, 904 (La. 1972); Thierry v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co., 563 So.2d 576, 577 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990); Broome v. Gauthier, 443 So.2d 1127, (La.App. 4 Cir. 1983). In attaching the proposed order for a jury trial to its answer, Chemical Leaman requested trial by jury. Its request therefore complied with state law.
Under Rule 81(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who has made an express demand for trial by jury in accordance with state law, need not make a jury demand after removal. The Court finds that a proper jury demand was made in state court and therefore the parties need not repeat the demand in federal court. Further, this case has been docketed for trial by jury in this Court since late 1999, the issues are appropriate for trial by jury, and because the parties have been operating under the assumption that this case will be tried by a jury, no party will be prejudiced. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that a jury trial is proper in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons state above, the Court denies Proctor Gamble's motion to strike the jury.