Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olga A. Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2196-PHX-ECV

ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion for Clarification of June 29, 2006

Order (Doc. #96). Defendant seeks clarification because the court referred to a jury trial in

the referenced order and Defendant contends that no jury trial was ever requested. Plaintiff

has not filed a response to the motion for clarification.

Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a

jury by (1) serving upon the other parties a demand therefore in writing 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, and (2) filing the demand as

required by Rule 5(d).

Additionally, a party who fails to serve and file a demand as required by the rule waives the

right to a jury trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). 

In the Joint Case Management Report (Doc. #9) filed back in June 2005, Plaintiff

indicated that she "may request a jury trial if she still can." However, no such request was

ever made. Moreover, in the Joint Pre-Trial Statement (Doc. #90) filed on June 15, 2006,

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 104 Filed 08/03/06 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 -

the parties did not include proposed voire dire questions or proposed jury instructions.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for clarification will be granted. The court's prior order

should not have referred to a jury trial and the matter will be tried to the court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Defendant's Motion for Clarification of June 29, 2006 Order (Doc. #96) is

granted. 

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 104 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2