Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00635/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00635-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICTORIA NICHOLSON, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0635-WS-B

 )

MIKE JOHANNS, SECRETARY, U.S. )

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, )

 )

Defendant. )

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.

Case 1:06-cv-00635-WS-B Document 28 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

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 this 28th day of March, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00635-WS-B Document 28 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2