Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

MICHAEL A. HIRST, CA Bar No. 131034

LESLIE GUILLON, CA Bar No. 222400 

KEITH ADAMS, CA Bar No. 240497

Hirst & Chanler LLP

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 605

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6100

Telecopier: (916) 443-6700

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Alexi Zuniga, Jackie Malcomb

and James Mamula

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH De FELICE, ALEXI ZUNIGA,

JACKIE MALCOMB, and JAMES MAMULA, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHUGACH MAINTENANCE SERVICES,

INC., MIKE COWART, TOBY COWART,

LORI FROST, MEL LYNCH, RICK TATE,

Defendants.

1:06-cv-0048 AWI-NEW (WMW)

STIPULATION FOR JURY TRIAL

AND ORDER

Trial:

Date: September 23, 2008

Time: 8:30 a.m. 

Court: Courtroom No. 2

WHEREAS, the Scheduling Conference Order states that

"[t]here is no record of a demand for jury trial by Plaintiffs";

WHEREAS, in fact, Plaintiffs requested a jury trial in their

initial Case Management Statement filed on December 28, 2005, in

Kern County Superior Court;

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

section 631(d)(4) (jury waived if not requested when case is

first set for trial) and California Rules of Court section 3.729

(case is set for trial at the case management conference),

Plaintiffs perfected their demand for jury trial under California

law;

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 55 Filed 05/18/07 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

WHEREAS, after removal, if a jury trial demand has been

properly made in state court, no new demand is necessary. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 81(c)("A party who, prior to removal, has made an

express demand for trial by jury in accordance with state law,

need not make a demand after removal"); Lutz v. Glendale Union

High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2005); 

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DO STIPULATE AND AGREE that

Plaintiffs have made an appropriate demand for jury trial and are

entitled to a trial by jury.

Dated: May 18, 2007 By: /s/ Michael A. Hirst 

 MICHAEL A. HIRST, ESQ.

 LESLIE GUILLON, ESQ.

 KEITH ADAMS, ESQ.

 Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 18, 2007 By: /s/ Pascal Benyamini 

 MARK E. TERMAN, ESQ.

 PASCAL BENYAMINI, ESQ.

 Counsel for Defendants

 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 55 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2