Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02214/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02214-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Essex Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

William Witt, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2214-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company has filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Jury

Demand. Doc. #67. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part

and deny it in part.

Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may demand

a jury trial with respect to a particular issue by serving a written demand on the other parties

“at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service

of the last pleading directed to such issue[.]” In this case, no party served a jury demand

within 10 days after the last pleading directed to issues raised in the original complaint. As

a result, the Court concludes that the parties have waived their rights to a jury trial with

respect to all issues raised in the original complaint. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be

granted with respect to all issues raised in the original complaint. 

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 21, 2006. Defendants Nigel Turner,

Jocelyn Turner, and CW Ranch, LLC (the “Turner/Ranch Defendants”) filed a timely jury

demand on May 5, 2006. Defendant William Witt did not file a timely jury demand with

Case 3:05-cv-02214-DGC Document 77 Filed 07/18/06 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

respect to the first amended complaint. Instead, Defendant Witt asserted his right to a jury

trial in a July 11, 2006 response to Plaintiff’s motion. 

The Turner/Ranch Defendants’ jury demand is timely with respect to issues raised for

the first time in the first amended complaint. Defendant Witt’s joinder is untimely.

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied with respect to the Turner/Ranch Defendants and issues

raised for the first time in the first amended complaint, but will be granted with respect to

Defendant Witt.

Plaintiff argues in its reply that the Turner/Ranch Defendants’ jury demand is

ineffective because issues raised for the first time in the first amended complaint seek only

equitable relief. Because this argument was made in a reply memorandum and Defendants

have had no opportunity to respond, the Court will not consider it at this time. The parties

should address this issue when they file a Proposed Final Pretrial Order later in the case. 

Plaintiff also argues in its reply that the Court should bifurcate trial of the equitable

and legal issues in this case. Because Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to

this argument and consideration of the issue at this stage of the case would be premature, the

Court will not address the argument. Bifurcation should be addressed in the Proposed Final

Pretrial Order to be filed later in the litigation.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company’s Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Jury Demand (Doc. #67) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth

above.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02214-DGC Document 77 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2