Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

M A C & Sons, Inc., a Nevada

corporation; and Munir A Chaudary,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-688-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike Defendants’ demand for a jury trial. Dkt. #21.

No response has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c). The

Court will grant the motion.

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a demand for a jury trial

must be made “no later than 10 days after the last pleading” is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1).

The last pleading in this case was Defendants’ answer filed on June 4, 2009. Dkt. #12. The

deadline for demanding a jury trial was therefore June 22, 2009. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d).

Defendants first requested a jury trial on July 23, 2009 (Dkt. #15 at 10), more than a month

late. Defendants filed a formal demand for a jury trial 11 days later. Dkt. #18. 

Defendants’ failure to make a timely demand under Rule 38(b) constitutes a waiver

of the right to a trial by jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d); see Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch.,

403 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rule 38 cut off Lutz’s right to demand a jury trial ten

days after Glendale’s answer was served[.]”); Kletzelman v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.,

Case 2:09-cv-00688-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/30/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

91 F.3d 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Since Kletzelman’s motion for a jury trial was untimely and

not in writing as required by Rule 38, the district court did not err in finding that Kletzelman

had waived her right to trial by jury.”); Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1530-31 (9th

Cir. 1995) (“Rule 38 establishes an affirmative duty for a party to file a jury demand; the

failure to file a demand constitutes a waiver of the right.”); see also Mardesich v. Marciel,

538 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir. 1976) (mere “oversight or inadvertence” in failing to properly

demand a jury trial is insufficient to obtain relief from waiver). Because Defendants had

waived the right to a jury trial prior to requesting one, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion

to strike. See id.; see also LRCiv 7.2(i) (a party’s failure to respond to a motion may be

deemed a consent to the granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ demand for jury trial (Dkt. #21) is

granted.

2. The Clerk is directed to strike from the record Defendant’s demand for jury

trial (Dkt. #18). 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00688-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2