Opinion
Civil Action. No. 06-2151 Section "L"(5).
October 31, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Defendant's Jury Demand (Rec. Doc. No. 9). The Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 21, 2006, alleging claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and general maritime law. The complaint did not specify whether the Plaintiff demanded a jury or a bench trial. On April 26, 2006, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to specify that the action was in admiralty pursuant to Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant filed an answer to the Plaintiff's original complaint on June 2, 2006 and demanded a trial by jury.
Rule 38(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that the Rules "shall not be construed to create a right to trial by jury of the issues in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(e). Because "jury demands are to give way whenever a plaintiff makes a 9(h) designation," Simmons v. Seatide International, Inc., 693 F. Supp. 510, 511 (E.D. La. 1988) (citing Truehart v. Blandon, 685 F. Supp. 956, 959 (E.D. La. 1988)) and because the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint well before the Defendant served responsive pleadings, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion is hereby GRANTED.