Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 06-0635-WS-B.
March 28, 2007
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Demand (doc. 26). In their First Amended Complaint (doc. 24) filed on February 28, 2007, plaintiffs Victoria and Sam Nicholson brought a claim against the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et seq. The First Amended Complaint includes a jury demand. In its Motion to Strike, however, the USDA points to authority declaring that a right to jury trial exists in an action against the United States only where the statute waiving sovereign immunity unequivocally expresses such a right. See, e.g., Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 161, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981) (explaining that "if Congress waives the Government's immunity from suit . . . the plaintiff has a right to a trial by jury only where that right is one of the terms of the Government's consent to be sued" and where such right is "unequivocally expressed"). Nothing in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act would purport to extend a jury trial right to plaintiffs suing the sovereign under that statute. See Haynie v. Veneman, 272 F. Supp. 2d 10, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) (striking plaintiff's jury demand in case against USDA under Equal Credit Opportunity Act, on grounds that the Act neither expressly provides for nor even mentions the right to a jury trial). Moreover, as plaintiffs elected not to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Motion within the time frame established by the Court-ordered briefing schedule, the Court does not have the benefit of any explanation by plaintiffs for why they feel that a right to jury trial might attach in these circumstances.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Motion to Strike Jury Demand (doc. 26) is due to be, and the same hereby is, granted. The jury demand set forth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (doc. 24) is stricken.
DONE and ORDERED.