Summary
construing response opposing defendant's motion to strike jury trial as a Rule 39(b) motion
Summary of this case from E&I Glob. Energy Servs. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-1825 SECTION "R" (5)
March 18, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants' motion to strike jury trial. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
At the preliminary conference in this matter, plaintiff's counsel represented to this Court that there was a jury demand in this case, and the Court scheduled the trial as a jury trial in its preliminary conference order dated September 25, 2003. The trial is currently scheduled for July 26, 2004. Defendants move the Court to strike the jury trial in this matter because plaintiff never demanded a jury trial in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. Under Rule 38(d), "[t]he failure to serve and file a demand as required by this rule constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury." FED. R. CIV. P. 38 (d). Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to demand a jury in this case. Plaintiff requests, however, that the Court relieve him from the waiver of a jury trial in this matter. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b), "notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues." FED. R. CIV. P. 39(b). The rule requires a motion by the party; the Court "may not employ Rule 39(b) of its own initiative." Swofford v. BW, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 409 (5th Cir. 1964). In his opposition to defendants' motion, the plaintiff clearly seeks to have the Court exercise its discretion under Rule 39(b) to allow a jury trial in this matter. Rather than soliciting a Rule 39(b) motion from plaintiff and further delaying the resolution of this issue, the Court construes plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to strike jury trial as a motion under Rule 39(b) and proceeds with the relevant analysis.
The Fifth Circuit delineated five factors that the Court should consider in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 39(b):
(1) whether the case involves issues which are best tried to a jury;
(2) whether granting the motion would result in a disruption of the court's schedule or that of an adverse party;
(3) the degree of prejudice to the adverse party;
(4) the length of the delay in having requested a jury trial; and
(5) the reason for the movant's tardiness in requesting a jury trial.Daniel Int'l Corp. v. Fischbach Moore, Inc., 916 F.2d 1061, 1064 (5th Cir. 1990). In this case, plaintiff asserts claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law based on the defendants' negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel on which he was allegedly injured. Plaintiff seeks damages including, inter alia, lost wages and mental and physical pain and suffering. The parties do not dispute plaintiff's right to a jury trial. A jury is well suited for resolving this type of fact — intensive dispute based on well — settled legal principles. If the Court were to grant plaintiff's motion there would be no disruption to the Court's schedule because the trial is still four months away, and the Court had already scheduled the trial as a jury trial. In light of the significant time until the trial in this case, the Court discerns no prejudice to the defendants. Counterbalancing these factors is plaintiff's delay in requesting a jury trial and the reason for this delay. Plaintiff filed this suit almost nine months ago in June 2003. Because the Court originally scheduled this matter as a jury trial, and the parties have operated under that assumption, however, any delay is of minimal consequence. Cf. Daniel Int'l, 916 F.2d at 1065. Plaintiff's counsel concedes that the reason for plaintiff's failure to make a jury demand is that counsel mistakenly believed that one had been made. Plaintiff became aware of the potential waiver of a jury trial only when the defendants brought it to his attention through their motion to strike.
The Seventh Amendment confers a fundamental right to a jury trial in federal court, and therefore "when the discretion of the court is invoked under Rule 39(b), the court should grant a jury trial in the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary." Daniel Int'l, 916 F.2d at 1064 (internal quotations omitted). On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion under Rule 39(b) when the failure to make a timely jury demand was the result of mere inadvertence on the part of the movant. See Farias v. Bexar County Bd. of Trustees for Mental Health Mental Retardation Services, 925 F.2d 866, 873 (5th Cir. 1991). Here, in light of the above factors, the Court finds no strong and compelling reason to deny plaintiff a jury trial in this matter. Plaintiff's fundamental right to a jury trial, in conjunction with the lack of discernable prejudice to the defendants or disruption of the Court's schedule, outweighs the plaintiff's failure to make a jury demand as a result of counsel's inadvertence. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 39(b) and orders a trial by a jury of all issues in this case. Cf. Daniel Int'l, 916 F.2d at 1065; Carr v. Wal — Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 80, 82 (M.D.La. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion to strike the jury trial in this case and orders a jury trial of all issues.