Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00082-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHLEEN CHAND,

NO. CIV. S-10-0082 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE

CO., and DOES 1 through 25,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

This case involves an insurance claim arising from the death

of plaintiff’s husband. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s jury

demand is untimely and, thus, should be stricken. For the reasons

described below, defendant’s motion is denied.

A. Procedural History

On November 13, 2009, plaintiff filed the instant action in

Sacramento County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. On January 11,

2010, Defendant filed a notice of removal. Id. The notice of

removal did not include a certificate of service. On January 26,

Case 2:10-cv-00082-LKK -JFM Document 20 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 The court notes that even if this motion were timely, it 1

would likely have found the jury demand to be timely. 

2

2010, defendant filed a certificate of service for the notice of

removal. Dkt. No. 5. This certificate, while dated on January 26,

2010, states that the notice of removal was served by mail on

plaintiff on January 15, 2010. On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a demand for jury trial. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff’s counsel

has testified that his office was served with the notice of

removal on January 28, 2010. Dkt. No. 17. Nonetheless, on

February 11, 2010, plaintiff received notice of electronic filing

as to the civil cover sheet in this case. On March 23, 2010,

defendant moved to strike plaintiff’s jury demand as untimely.

B. Argument

Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury

trial as untimely. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f),

“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or

any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

Defendant argues that the jury trial demand is untimely under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(3)(B), which provides that,

when required, such a demand must be made within 14 days of

service on the plaintiff of the notice of removal. Pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C) and 6(d), service is

effected seventeen days after mailing.

The court need not decide whether plaintiff’s jury demand

was timely, however, because defendant did not timely file its

motion to strike. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1

Case 2:10-cv-00082-LKK -JFM Document 20 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

12(f)(2), a motion to strike must be filed within twenty-one (21)

days after being served with the pleading. Here, defendant was

electronically served on February 4, 2010, yet waited forty-seven

days to file its motion to strike. Thus, defendant’s motion to

strike plaintiff’s jury demand is denied as untimely. 

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s demand for jury trial,

Dkt. No. 9, is DENIED. 

The court further orders that the hearing on this motion,

set for May 24, 2010, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00082-LKK -JFM Document 20 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 3