Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05223/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05223-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5223

ARKANSAS PATIENT TRANSFER, INC.;

ARKANSAS TRANSFER SERVICE, INC.;

DEBBIE J. DRUMMOND; and MICHAEL

NOBLIN DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 2nd day of April, 2007, comes on for

consideration the government's Motion To Strike Jury Trial Demand

(document #12), and from said motion, and the response thereto,

the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Defendants' Answer in this matter was filed on December

15, 2006. No jury demand was made by either plaintiff or

defendants, and the matter was set down for trial to the Court by

an Initial Scheduling Order dated December 18, 2006. The parties

conducted their Rule 26(f) conference and filed the required

report, and a final Scheduling Order was entered on February 21,

2007.

2. Thereafter, on February 23, 2007, defendants - having

obtained a new attorney - filed a Jury Trial Request. The Court

ascertained that the matter was one which was triable to a jury,

and rescheduled it for trial to a jury.

3. The government now moves to strike the demand for jury

trial, contending that defendants waived their right to make such

Case 5:06-cv-05223-JLH Document 20 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

a demand. Defendants respond that the matter is discretionary

with the Court, and that there will be no prejudice if they are

allowed a jury.

4. The issue is governed by F.R.C.P. 39(b), which provides

that "notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in

an action in which such a demand might have been made of right,

the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a

jury of any or all issues." The Court believes this is an

appropriate case in which to exercise that discretion. While the

jury demand was untimely, it did not come so late as to prejudice

the government or delay the trial, nor does the government contend

that such would be the result of allowing the jury demand. The

affidavit of defendant Debbie J. Drummond indicates that she was

not advised by her first attorney that there was a right to a jury

trial, and that as soon as she learned the right existed, she

requested of her new attorney that a jury trial be demanded. The

motion will, therefore, be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the government's Motion To

Strike Jury Trial Demand (document #12) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05223-JLH Document 20 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>