Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01939/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01939-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves the Court 

to strike Plaintiff Maurice J. Curtis’ jury demand. (Doc. 13). The Court deemed the matter suitable 

for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing. Having 

considered the parties’ respective arguments, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion 

to Strike is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Jury Demand is STRICKEN. (Docs. 4, 13). 

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed his initial employment discrimination complaint in the 

Fresno County Superior Court, which did not contain a jury demand. Defendant filed and served its

answer on November 26, 2013, and on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, subsequently filed and served 

its Notice of Removal of this action to federal court on November 27, 2013. (Doc. 1). On January 

24, 2014, Plaintiff filed in the Fresno County Superior Court a check-box state court case management 

MAURICE J. CURTIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BCI COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES 

BOTTLING COMPANIES, 

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1:13-cv-1939 AWI-BAM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 8
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

statement, which included a request for a jury trial in this matter. (Doc. 20-1), Exhibit B at pg. 8. Four 

days later, on January 28, 2014, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with the Fresno County Superior 

Court clerk. (Doc. 20-1), Exhibit A at pg. 2. On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a demand for a jury 

trial in this Court (Doc. 4), which Defendant claims is untimely. The issue was discussed briefly at the 

April 10, 2014 initial scheduling conference. At that time, Plaintiff represented to this Court that he 

properly made and preserved his right to a jury trial while this action was still pending in the state 

court. Defendant disagreed. The parties were instructed to file a motion if a resolution could not be 

reached. The instant Motion followed. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

Generally, when in federal court, a party may demand a jury trial by properly serving the other 

parties with a written demand no later than fourteen (14) days after the last pleading directed to the 

issue is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). “[T]he purpose of a jury demand is to inform the court and 

opposing counsel that certain issues will be tried to a jury.” Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 

F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005). At a minimum, courts “insist . . . that the jury demand be sufficiently 

clear to alert a careful reader that a jury trial is requested . . . .” Id. at 1064. “A party waives a jury trial 

unless its demand is properly served and filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). However, the court “‘indulge[s] 

every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of the jury trial right.” Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1064 (quoting 

Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937)). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81 governs jury demands in a removed action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

81(c)(3). Under Rule 81, “a party [is] entitled to a jury trial . . . if the party serves a demand within 14 

days after” removal. Id. “[F]ailure to make a timely jury trial request in federal court . . . ordinarily 

mean[s] that [the party] waived [the] right to trial by jury.” Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1063 (citation omitted). 

“However, Rule 81(c) provides two possible avenues around waiver in removal cases”: (1) if the party 

“made a proper jury request under state law before the case was removed,” id. (emphasis in original) 

(citing Fed R. Civ. P. 81(c)); or (2) “if [the] state complaint already contained a jury demand that 

would have satisfied Rule 38(b),” id. at 1064 (citations omitted).

Additionally, the court in its discretion “may, on motion, order a trial by a jury of any or all 

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 8
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

27

28

issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b); see also Lewis v. Time, Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The 

district court, in its discretion, may order a jury trial on a motion by a party who has not filed a timely 

demand for one.” (citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 

1049, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1990). Notwithstanding the court’s discretion, “[a]n untimely request for a 

jury trial must be denied unless some cause beyond mere inadvertence is shown.” Pac. Fisheries Corp. 

v. H.I.H. Cas. & Gen. Ins., Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); see also 

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (denying pro se’s untimely jury 

demand). Absent such a showing, granting an untimely jury demand constitutes an abuse of discretion. 

Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1065 n.4 (citation omitted).

B. The Parties’ Positions 

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand on the grounds that Plaintiff’s waived his 

right to a jury trial by failing to file his jury demand within fourteen (14) days of Defendant’s 

November 27, 2013, notice of removal. Defendant concedes that it did not file a notice of removal 

with the clerk of the state court as required by subsection 1446(d) until January 28, 2014. However, 

Defendant contends that removal was effective upon filing the petition in federal court on November 

27, 2013, and therefore, both Plaintiff’s February 12, 2014 demand for a jury trial filed in federal court

and Plaintiff’s January 24, 2014 request for a jury trial in state court were untimely. 

Plaintiff responds that he is entitled to a jury trial because his jury demand was timely made in 

state court on January 24, 2014, prior to Defendant’s effective removal. According to Plaintiff, 

because his jury demand was filed in state court prior to Defendant’s January 28, 2014 notice to state 

court, Plaintiff was not required to renew his jury demand in this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

81(c)(3)(A). Plaintiff concedes that he did not demand a jury trial in the initial Complaint that he filed 

in state court, nor did he file a jury demand in this court within fourteen days after being served with 

notice of removal. Instead, Plaintiff argues that his state-filed January 24, 2014, demand for a jury trial 

was timely under the Rule 81 exception. Rule 81(c)(3)(A) excuses a party from Rule 81(c)’s fourteenday requirement if the party “made a proper jury request under state law before the case was 

removed.” Lutz, 403 F.3d at 1063 (emphasis in original) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)).

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 3 of 8
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

C. Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Jury Demand 

Defendant filed its Notice of Removal of this action to federal court on November 27, 2013. 

(Doc. 1). On that same date, Defendant served its Notice of Removal by mail on Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Jennifer Snyder. (Doc. 1 at 45). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), a party may demand a jury trial on any issue 

triable by a jury by serving the other parties with a written demand “no later than fourteen days after 

the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).1 A party waives the right to a 

jury trial under Rule 38 unless the demand is properly served and filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d); Solis v. 

Cnty. of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2008). When a case is removed from state court, 

Rule 81 states that if the initial pleadings served and filed at the time of removal do not include a jury 

demand, a party desiring a jury trial must file a demand within fourteen days after being served with 

the notice of removal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(B)(ii). 

Here, Plaintiff was served with the Notice of Removal on November 27, 2013. The time to 

make a jury demand in federal court runs from service of the removal petition filed in federal court, 

not from the time that notice of the removal is provided to the state court from which the case is 

removed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(B)(ii). Rule 81(c)(3)(B) states that a party must file a jury demand 

within the fourteen days after the party “is served with a notice of removal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

81(c)(3)(B)(ii). Defendant filed and served its Notice of Removal on November 27, 2013, and 

Plaintiff had fourteen days from that date in which to file and serve his jury demand. Plaintiff failed to 

do, and therefore Plaintiff’s jury demand was untimely.

D. Defendant’s Notice of Removal was Defective but Effective

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s petition for removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), was 

not effective until January 28, 2014—the day Defendant filed a copy of its Notice of Removal with the 

Fresno County Superior Court clerk. (Doc. 20 at 7). Section 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), states that 

“[r]emoval is effect[ive] only after Defendant takes three procedural steps including: (1) filing a notice 

 

1

Fed R. Civ. 38(b) states in relevant part “on any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial 

by (1) service the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after 

the last pleading directed to the issue is served...” 

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 4 of 8
5

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

of removal in the federal court, (2) filing a copy of this notice in the state court, and (3) giving prompt 

written notice to all adverse parties.” 14C Wright, Miller, & Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE § 3737; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). In Plaintiff’s view, Defendant’s removal was not 

effective until after Defendant took all three procedural steps of removal, including filing a copy of the 

notice of removal in the state court. Plaintiff argues that since Defendant did not file in state court a 

copy of the Notice of Removal until January 28, 2014, removal was not complete until that date. 

Plaintiff argues that the fourteen-day time clock began to run not from the date Defendant served its 

Notice of Removal on November 27, 2013, but rather from the date the Notice of Removal was filed 

in state court. 

This Court previously denied a Plaintiff’s similar argument in Gutierrez v. Empire Mortg. 

Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47358, *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010) (Ishii, J.). In Gutierrez, the Court 

examined whether removal to federal court is effective when the removing party neglects to file a 

notice of removal with the Clerk of the state court. The Gutierrez Court rejected the argument 

advanced by Plaintiff here and held that the filing of the notice of removal in federal court—while not 

providing notice to the state court clerk—confers jurisdiction on the federal court. Relying on Miller 

v. Aqua Glass, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55228, **3-5 (D. Or. July 21, 2008),

2

the Gutierrez Court 

examined the “split of authority on whether the federal court obtains jurisdiction immediately upon the 

filing of the Notice of Removal with the clerk of the federal court, or only after all three [procedural 

removal] steps are completed.” Gutierrez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47358, at *5. The Court noted that 

in Miller, the Oregon court rejected the view that “removal is not effective until all the steps required 

by the federal statute have been taken by the defendant” Id. (citing FEDERAL PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE, § 3737). The Miller court instead endorsed an approach set forth in 16 Moore’s Federal 

Practice—Civil § 107.31, which opines that “[w]hen a defendant files a notice of removal in federal 

court and sometime later files the notice in state court, the two courts share concurrent jurisdiction 

until the notice is filed in state court, which divests the state court of jurisdiction.” Miller, 2008 U.S. 

 

2

In Gutierrez, the Court noted that Miller v. Aqua Glass, Inc. was the only case the court could find that directly 

confronts the issue of whether removal is effective where the removing party neglects to file a notice of removal with the 

clerk of the state court.

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Dist. LEXIS 55228, at *2. Finding Miller persuasive, the Gutierrez Court adopted Miller’s reasoning 

and concluded that a notice of removal filed by Defendants in this Court was sufficient to bestow

jurisdiction on this court. Gutierrez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47358, *5. 

Consistent with the rationale in Gutierrez, this Court obtained jurisdiction with the filing of 

the Notice of Removal. Once this Court obtained jurisdiction, albeit concurrent jurisdiction with state 

court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control the manner in which a federal action is handled, 

included requesting a jury trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions 

and proceedings in the United States district courts.”) Even if Defendant failed to file its notice with 

the state court clerk, service of Defendant’s Notice of Removal on Plaintiff commenced the fourteenday clock for Plaintiff’s jury demand because this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 81(c)(3)(B); Gutierrez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47358 at *7 (the accepted rule in this district is that 

a “defective removal is effective, although it may be still be susceptible to a motion to remand.”). 

Thus, despite Defendant’s late notice of removal in state court, Defendant’s filing in this Court and 

service on Plaintiff of a timely and properly-supported Notice of Removal commenced the federal 

court action such that “the district court had jurisdiction over it.” See also Wasserman v. Rodacker, 

557 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (declining to invalidate a timely-filed and properly supported 

notice of removal because filing attorney previously had not filed a notice of appearance, reasoning 

that it was a “minor procedural defect” and that plaintiff was not prejudiced because she knew of the 

removal and did not timely object to it). Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(B)(ii),

Plaintiff was required to serve his jury demand within 14 days after being served with Defendant’s 

November 27, 2013 Notice of Removal for such demand to be timely. Plaintiff’s January 24, 2014, 

state court jury demand and February 12, 2014, jury demand filed here in federal court were thus 

untimely. 

E. Jury Demand Pursuant to Rule 39(b) 

Plaintiff also asks the Court to exercise its discretion in ordering a jury trial pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). Rule 39(b) states that “[i]ssues on which a jury trial is not properly 

demanded are to be tried by the court. But the court may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for 

which a jury might have been demanded.” Fed. R. Civ. 39(b). Plaintiff explains that he failed to file a 

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 6 of 8
7

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

timely jury demand, not due to inadvertence, but because Counsel was not authorized to practice in 

Federal Court at the time this matter was removed. Plaintiff is correct that the Court, “in its discretion, 

may order a jury trial on a motion by a party who has not filed a timely demand for one.” Lewis, 710 

F.2d at 556. However, the Ninth Circuit has consistently held that the district court’s discretion under 

Rule 39(b) is “narrow” and such relief is limited in two respects. Pac. Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & 

Gen. Ins., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001 ). First, Plaintiff’s request should be made in a properly 

noticed motion, not by way of opposition to Defendant’s Motion as Plaintiff has done here. Second, 

“[a]n untimely request for a jury trial must be denied unless some cause beyond mere inadvertence is 

shown.” Pac. Fisheries Corp., 239 F.3d at 1002. 

Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence demonstrating that Counsel’s lack of admission to 

this district hindered Plaintiff’s efforts to provide notice of timely jury demand. Plaintiff did not 

provide evidence of efforts undertaken to gain admission. Plaintiff did not provide any supporting 

evidence establishing when Counsel applied for admission to this district and has not alleged that 

Counsel was diligent in seeking admission. Indeed, Admission to the Eastern District of California is 

not complicated. Counsel’s failure to timely apply to practice this district simply does not warrant any 

grant of relief by this Court. 

Further, Counsel was not precluded from serving Defendant with a jury demand prior to her 

admission to this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(B)(ii) only requires that a party “serve a demand” 

within 14 days after being served with a notice of removal filed by another party. There is no 

evidence from which the Court can conclude that relief is warranted. Accordingly, the Court will not 

exercise its discretion.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 7 of 8
8

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

demand for a jury trial. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff’s jury demand filed on February 12, 2014 is HEREBY 

STRICKEN. (Doc. 4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 36 Filed 09/18/14 Page 8 of 8