Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00019/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00019-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLLATERAL ANALYTICS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00019-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE JURY DEMAND, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Xome 

Settlement Services, LLC, and Quantarium, LLC (collectively “defendants”) move to strike 

plaintiff’s jury demand. The motion has been submitted without oral argument and will be denied, 

without prejudice.

There is no dispute that this action arises generally from the “Master Services Agreements”

(“MSAs”) Collateral Analytics entered into with defendants Nationstar and Xome. The MSAs also 

undisputedly contained provisions stating:

Each Party hereby waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any 

disputes, controversies, claims or proceedings arising out of or 

related to this Agreement or any Statement of Work.

Defendants concede applicable California state law preserves plaintiff’s right to a jury trial for 

state law claims, notwithstanding those provisions of the MSAs. See Motion at 1:26-2:1 

(“Defendants therefore acknowledge that Collateral Analytics is not bound by the jury-trial 

Case 3:18-cv-00019-RS Document 171 Filed 07/05/19 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 18-cv-00019-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

waivers with respect to California state-law claims.”) Defendants nevertheless seek a ruling at this 

juncture that plaintiff’s federal law claims should not be presented to a jury, given plaintiff’s 

stated waiver.

In opposition, plaintiff relies on a stipulation the parties executed after the disputes leading 

to this litigation arose. That agreement states, in relevant part:

The Parties agree that all state law claims related only to the Dispute 

will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of 

the State of California, without regard to the principles of the 

conflicts of laws thereof, including, but not limited to, any breach of 

contract claims brought pursuant to either of the Agreements. 

For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent either of the Agreements

govern any claims related only to the Dispute, the Parties agree that 

such Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance 

with the laws of the State of California but onlyfor [sic] the purpose 

of litigation over any such claims.

The first paragraph set out above confirms the point that the parties do not dispute here: 

plaintiff’s state law claims are subject to adjudication by a jury. The question is whether the 

second paragraph is sufficient to override the usual rule that the right to a jury determination of 

federal claims ordinarily is determined under federal law.

On its face, the stipulation is ambiguous, and neither side has presented sufficient evidence 

or argument to permit a definitive construction. The first paragraph arguably implies only state 

law claims are to be governed under California law. The second paragraph, however, suggests 

“any” relevant claims are to be governed by California law. While defendants do not concede the 

stipulation would waive a jury right even if it applies to “any” claims, such as federal claims, that 

result appears to follow from such a construction.

Defendants’ motion advances procedure over substance. Even assuming defendants may 

be able to show that some plaintiff’s claims must be decided by the court, there is no indication a 

jury would not be seated to hear all the evidence.

Nothing in this order precludes defendants from subsequently showing the stipulation 

should not be construed to enforce California’s prohibition on jury waivers as to the federal claims

plaintiff advances in this action. Furthermore, defendants will be entitled in any event to propose 

Case 3:18-cv-00019-RS Document 171 Filed 07/05/19 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 18-cv-00019-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

jury instructions and a form of verdict that distinguishes among the claims that are to be decided 

by the court as opposed to by the jury. Accordingly, the motion to strike the jury demand is 

denied, without prejudice to further argument at the time of trial as to the scope of what the jury 

will be asked to decide.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00019-RS Document 171 Filed 07/05/19 Page 3 of 3