Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00385/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00385-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

- 1 - 11cv385 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENINSULA LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND

SPC, CLASS A SEGREGATED

PORTFOLIO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv385WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Relief from Jury Waiver filed by Plaintiff

Peninsula Life Settlement Fund SPC. (ECF No. 10).

BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the San Diego County Superior

Court alleging breach of contract and tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff is represented by attorneys Chip Edleson and Joann Rezzo. (ECF No. 1-1 at 12). On

February 24, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). On April 1,

2011, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 6).

On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Jury Demand (ECF No. 11) and a Motion for Relief

from Jury Waiver pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff

contends that the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief from the jury waiver. Id.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant will not suffer any prejudice if the jury demand is accepted.

Case 3:11-cv-00385-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/11 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

- 2 - 11cv385 WQH (JMA)

Id. Plaintiff’s counsel, Joann Rezzo, submits a declaration and states that she intended to make

a demand for jury trial; however, she “failed to do so because of events concerning [her]

86-year old mother who was undergoing cancer treatments.” (ECF No. 10-2 at 2).

On May 16, 2011, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 14).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s jury demand was untimely and that no circumstances exist

in this case that warrant relief. Id. Defendant asserts that Edleson could have filed a timely

jury demand while his co-counsel Rezzo was caring for her mother. Id.

On May 23, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff submitted the declaration

of Chip Edleson, counsel for Plaintiff, who states that Ms. Rezzo “works as my partner” and

that “Ms. Rezzo was taking care of the jury demand in this matter and [I] had no reason to

suspect she did not do so.” (ECF No. 15-1 at 2). Edleson states that “she routinely handles

this task” and that “I had no reason to suspect that she did not do so.” Id.

DISCUSSION 

A party may demand a jury trial, on an issue triable by a jury, “no later than 14 days

after the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). In this case,

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on April 1, 2011. (ECF No. 6). A jury demand

was due no later than April 15, 2011, but Plaintiff filed a jury demand on April 26, 2011. The

Court finds that Plaintiff failed to file a timely jury demand. 

Relief from waiver of jury trial may be sought under Rule 39(b), which states that “the

court may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been

demanded.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). “The district court’s discretion under Rule 39(b) is narrow

and does not permit a court to grant relief when the failure to make a timely demand results

from an oversight or inadvertence ...” Pac. Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins. Ltd., 239

F.3d 1000, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990 (9th

Cir. 1997) (describing the Ninth Circuit interpretation of Rule 39(b) as “a bright line rule”);

Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir. 1982) (refusing to grant

relief where “assisting counsel ... did not detect the oversight and file a demand before the

deadline had passed”); Chandler Supply Co. v. GAF Corp., 650 F.2d 983, 987-88 (9th Cir.

Case 3:11-cv-00385-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/11 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

- 3 - 11cv385 WQH (JMA)

1980) (refusing to grant relief where “the lawyer in charge of the case ... was swamped with

other work when the complaint was being prepared”).

In this case, Plaintiff is represented by two attorneys, Chip Edleson and Joann Rezzo.

Neither attorney filed a timely demand for jury trial. Even if Rezzo’s failure to demand a jury

trial was not due to oversight or inadvertence, Edleson has not shown that his failure to

demand a jury trial was not due to oversight or inadvertence. (ECF No. 10). The Court

concludes that the facts in this case do not support relief from jury waiver pursuant to Rule

39(b).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Relief from Jury Waiver filed by

Plaintiff Peninsula Life Settlement Fund SPC (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

DATED: August 11, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00385-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/11 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:11-cv-00385-WQH-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/11 Page 4 of 4