Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02319-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEZAR CARVAJAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2319-GPC(MDD)

ORDER RE: WAIVER OF JURY

vs. TRIAL 

PRIDE INDUSTRIES, INC.; 

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

On June 28, 2013, the Court held a pretrial conference and Defendant raised for

the first time the issue of that Plaintiff waived his right to a jury trial. Accordingly, the

Court directed the partiesto file briefsregarding the issue. On July 3, 2013, Defendant

filed a brief. (Dkt. No. 53.) On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response. (Dkt. No. 54.) 

Based on the reasoning below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not waived his

right to a jury trial. 

Background

On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a half page complaint

consisting of single word and phrases causes of action to support his complaint. (Dkt.

No. 1) On the attached Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff circled “YES” as to jury demand. 

(Id. at 2.) On November 18, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 4.) 

On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff, still proceeding pro se filed a first amended complaint

- 1 - [10CV2319-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 4
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

without any reference to a jury demand. (Dkt. No. 5.) On January 11, 2011, the Court

dismissed the first amended complaint for failing to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 9.) On

March 14, 2011, Plaintiff, with counsel, filed a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No.

14.) The caption states “DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.” (Id. at 1.) After the Court’s

ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, only two violations alleged under

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) remain. These violations are

Defendants’ failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability and retaliation. 

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived his right to a jury arguing that the

request for jury demand in the caption does not meet the requirement under Civil Local

Rule 38.1. Without legal support, it contends that a jury demand must be a

“substantive demand in the body of a pleading, and not simply noted in the caption.” 

(Dkt. No. 53 at 4.) Plaintiff opposes arguing that he has not waived his right to a jury

trial and the local rules do not require a demand to be separate and distinct from the

demand in the caption. (Dkt. No. 54 at 4.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d) providesthat “[a] party waives a jury trial

unless its demand is properly served and filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). A party may

demand a jury trial by “serving the other parties with a written demand-which may be

included in a pleading-no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue

is served . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1). Local Civil Rule 38.1 states that when a

“demand is made for a jury trial, it must appear immediately following the title of the

complaint, petition, or answer containing the demand, or on such other pleading as may

be permitted under Rule 38(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.” Local Civ. R. 38.1. 

The Court “must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver” of a jury

trial. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937). The purpose of a jury

demand isto inform the court and opposing counsel that the case will be tried to a jury. 

Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005). As a result,

there is a flexibility as to how the request is made and may fall far short of the ideal in

- 2 - [10CV2319-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 4
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

order to comport with the presumption against waiver. Id. at 1064-65. In Lutz, the

Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff’s jury demand, although buried in the pleading in the

prayer for relief stating “requested compensatory damages for pain and suffering in

‘such amount as may be awarded by a jury,’” was sufficient to provide notice to the

court and opposing counsel that she wanted a jury trial on two remedial issues. Id. at

1064-65; see also Gargiulo v. Delsole, 769 F.2d 77, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1985) (“While

defendants’ demand, made on the last page of their answer, was not in the preferred

style, and its obscure placement perhaps caused the clerk of the court to overlook it, we

nonetheless conclude that it complied with Rule 38(b).”); Pradier v. Elespuru, 641 F.2d

808, 810-11 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that, where the body of a pleading contains a jury

trial demand, the pleading need not also state in its caption that a jury trial is requested

in order to comply with Rule 38(b)-even if a district court rule requires such a

statement); see also Mondor v. U.S. Dist. Court, 910 F.2d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1990)

(jury demand in caption would have satisfied federal rules and procedures). 

Here, the second amended complaint is the operative complaint and is the 1

pleading to determine whether a jury demand was sufficiently made. In the caption of

the second amended complaint, Plaintiff writes “DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL” in

capital letters. This provides clear notice to the Court and the opposing party that

Plaintiff sought a jury trial on the causes of action in the second amended complaint. 

It was clear to the Court because the docket states, “SECOND AMENDED

The second amended complaint added numerous facts and additional causes of 1

action. An amended pleading revives the right to demand a jury trial if the amendment

raises new issues or changes the original issues. See Trixler Brokerage Co. v. Ralston

Purina Co., 505 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 1974); see also Chemical Bank v. Affiliated

FM Ins. Co, No. 87 Civ. 0150(VLB), 1994 WL 719681, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1994)

(“It is equally wellsettled that once a jury trial has been waived, jury demandsset forth

for the first time in amended pleadings will revive the right to a jury trial only if the

amendments change the issues involved in the original complaint.”) Here, Plaintiff,

in prior pleadings, merely alleged causes of action without any factual support and

consisted of a half page. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff filed an 18 page

complaint adding facts and new causes of action. The Court concludes that the second

amended complaint revived the right to demand a jury trialsince the factual allegations

changed the issuesin the past pleading. Moreover, the additional causes of action also

revived the right to demand a jury trial. 

- 3 - [10CV2319-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 4
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

COMPLAINT with Jury Demand.” (Dkt. No. 14.) Moreover, Defendants, in the

proposed pretrial order agreed and acknowledged a trial by jury. Therefore, the Court

concludes that a jury demand was properly made and Plaintiff has not waived his right

to a jury trial. 

2

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on his ADA

retaliation claim. See Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261, 1269-70 (9th

Cir. 2009) (since ADA retaliation claimisredressable only by equitable relief, “ no jury

trial is available.”). Plaintiff does not oppose and agrees that retaliation claim is

limited to equitable relief; however, he contendsthat the failure to accommodate allows 

for compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff argues that both claims should be

tried in a single trial where the court can preside over the retaliation cause of action

while a jury can decide the failure to accommodate cause of action. 

The Court agrees and will conduct a single trial on both causes of action unless

Defendant files an objection. Defendant shall file an objection no later than July 18,

2013. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not waived his right

to a jury trial on the accommodation claim and is not entitled to a jury trial on the

retaliation claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 15, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Local Civil Rule 38.1 states that the jury demand must appear immediately 2

following the title of the complaint. In this case, the jury demand was placed in the

caption immediately following the title of the complaint. Contrary to Defendant’s

argument, Local Rules does not require that the jury demand also be placed in the body

of a pleading. 

- 4 - [10CV2319-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/15/13 Page 4 of 4