Opinion
No. X07-CV02-0084287S
October 20, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The defendants move to strike this case from the jury docket because the claim for jury trial was belatedly filed. The plaintiff acknowledges the lateness of the claim but asks the court to exercise its statutory prerogative to order that the matter be tried before a jury, notwithstanding.
General Statute § 52-215 affords two opportunities for a litigant to request a jury trial; viz. within thirty days after the return date or within ten days after the disputed issues are joined. General Statute § 51-239b provides that, in civil cases, the failure to abide by these time periods constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial.
In the present case, the pleadings were closed in August 2004. The plaintiff filed his jury claim on August 23, 2005, more than a year too late. Because of the failure to file timely under § 52-215, the plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial by virtue of § 51-239b.
However, § 52-215 also permits the court to order a case to be decided by a jury despite the absence of a timely jury claim by the parties, and the plaintiff requests such an order. It is unnecessary for a party to file a separate motion to assert such a request which can instead be addressed when the court decides the motion to strike the case from the jury docket. Falk v. Schuster, 171 Conn. 5, 8 (1976).
Trial courts, including this one, routinely grant motions to remove cases from the jury docket when the jury claim is tardy. Compliance with the clear and simple rules of § 52-215 compel such a result. Strict enforcement of the time limits of § 52-215 have been noted. Moeller v. St. Lake's Foundation, Inc., Superior Court Stamford J.D., d.n. CV 04-199334 (July 1, 2005), Hiller, J.; and Long v. Hartford Neighborhood Center, Superior Court, CLD Norwich, d.n. X04-CV98-122679 (May 22, 2002), McLachlan, J. ( 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 128)
In this case, however, the court has decided in favor of ordering that this controversy be tried before a jury. The plaintiff concedes that he erroneously failed to recognize that the pleadings had closed, but he points out that this closure occurred through an unusual procedural event. Typically, issues are joined by a responsive pleading. In the present matter the pleadings were closed instead by the court's granting of a motion to strike the defendants' special defense. While the plaintiff ought to have perceived that the pleadings were closed by the court's action, the unusual procedural trigger explains the delinquency in a manner that merits some consideration.
Additionally, on May 17, 2004, at a status conference, the plaintiff indicated that a jury trial would be requested. The parties, with the assent of the court, chose trial dates which incorporated time for jury selection. Thus, it was the expectation of all parties and the court at that time that this case would be tried to a jury. Voir dire is presently scheduled to commence on January 30, 2007.
The tardy filing results in no disruption of the court's calendar nor can the defendants point to any prejudice to them except that they would prefer the economy of a shorter trial. The court perceives no advantage gained by the plaintiff by the late filing of the jury claim. Under these unusual circumstances the court orders that this matter remain docketed for jury trial despite the failure to comply with the time periods under § 52-215.