Having applied the five factors as articulated in Daniel to the present case, the Court concludes that strong and compelling reasons exist to deny plaintiffs' Motion for Trial by Jury. First, the Court is not convinced that this action, filed in state court as a class action seeking an award for damages to multiple tracts of marsh and wetlands property, presents straightforward factual and legal issues best tried to a jury.See, e.g., Route v. Oschner Clinic Foundation, 2003 WL 203086 (E.D.La. Jan. 28, 2003) (Porteous, J.) (finding that race discrimination claims filed by multiple defendants are best handled by the court). Cf., Sartin v. Cliff's Drilling Co., 2004 WL 551209, at *1 (E.D.La. March 18, 2004) (Vance, J.) (finding, in maritime action seeking damages for personal injuries, that a jury is well-suited for resolving that type of fact-intensive dispute based on well-settled legal principles); Istre v. Williams, 2000 WL 1473595, at *2 (E.D.La. Sept. 29, 2000) (Barbier, J.) (finding that an action seeking damages for personal injuries arising out of a bus accident presented straightforward factual and legal issues which are routinely and easily tried by a jury).