Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02131/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02131-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James W. Ramey, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-2131-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Gordon Trucking, Inc., et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial, filed

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(b) on May 1, 2007. Having considered the parties'

memoranda, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.

As this case was removed from the Arizona Superior Court, the timeliness

of the plaintiff's request for a jury trial is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c). 

Recognizing, as he must, that he failed to timely serve a jury demand under any

other portion of Rule 81(c), the plaintiff argues that he has not waived his right to

a jury trial pursuant to that portion of Rule 81(c) providing that "[i]f the state law

applicable in the court from which the case is removed does not require the

parties to make express demands in order to claim trial by jury, they need not

Case 2:06-cv-02131-PGR Document 27 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 2 -

make demands after removal unless the court directs that they do so within a

specified time if they desire to claim trial by jury." The Court concurs with the

defendants that this Rule 81(c) exception relied on by the plaintiff has no

applicability to this case and that the plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial as

a matter of law.

The Rule 81(c) exception at issue is very narrow in that it dispenses with

the jury demand only when the case would have been automatically set for a jury

trial under the forum state's law without a jury demand. See Cascone v. Ortho

Pharmaceutical Corp., 702 F.2d 389, 391 (2nd Cir. 1983) (Court noted that this

Rule 81(c) exception applies only when the state from which the case is removed

does not require the parties to expressly claim trial by jury and acts on the

presumption that the parties desire a jury unless they affirmatively indicate

otherwise.) Arizona law, however, requires a timely jury demand if the right to a

jury trial is to be preserved in that Ariz,R.Civ.P. 38(b) provides that a jury demand

must be made no later than the first of either the date the case is set for trial or

ten days after a motion to set the case for trial is served, and Ariz.R.Civ.P. 38(d)

provides that the right to a jury trial is waived if a jury demand is not timely

served. See Mason v. Cansino, 195 Ariz. 465, 990 P.2d 666, 667 (App. 1999)

(Court noted that the right to a jury trial in civil cases in Arizona is presumptively

waived unless at least one litigant demands a jury trial under Ariz.R.Civ.P. 38.)

The plaintiff's further argument that the Court nevertheless has the

discretion to grant him a jury trial under Rule 39(b) because personal injury cases

are traditionally tried by a jury, the action is in its early stages, and the defendants

would not be prejudiced by a jury trial is meritless as a matter of law. The plaintiff

has expressly conceded, both in his motion and in the parties' Joint Case

Case 2:06-cv-02131-PGR Document 27 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 3 -

Management Report, that a timely jury demand was not made because his

counsel was simply unaware of Rule 81(c) and its time limits. In the Ninth Circuit,

unlike in some other circuits, a district court's discretion under Rule 39(b) to

permit an untimely jury demand "is narrow ... and does not permit a court to grant

relief when the failure to make a timely [jury] demand results from oversight or

inadvertence.") Lewis v. Time, Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 556-57 (9th Cir. 1983); accord,

Pacific Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Casualty & General Ins. Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002

(9th Cir. 2001) (Court, noting that an attorney's good faith mistake of law under

Rule 81(c) is no different than inadvertence or oversight, stated that "[a]n

untimely request for a jury trial must be denied unless some cause beyond mere

inadvertence is shown.") Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial (doc. #21) is

denied.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02131-PGR Document 27 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3