Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05267/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN M. NASH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARSH FINANCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-05267 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STRIKE ORAL JURY DEMAND

Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to strike the oral demand for a

jury trial made by plaintiff at the Case Management Conference on March 18, 1995. After

considering the papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in state court on October 26, 2004. His complaint does not

demand a trial by jury. Defendants removed this action to this Court on December 13, 2004. 

Four days later defendants filed their answer. At the Case Management Conference on

March 18, 2005, plaintiff made an oral demand for trial by jury. Defendants move to strike

that demand on the ground that it was untimely and therefore waived.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff was required to demand a trial by jury within ten days of service of 

Case 3:04-cv-05267-CRB Document 23 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants’ answer, that is, by the end of 2004. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Plaintiff’s failure

to make a timely jury trial demand in federal court means that he waived his right to trial by

jury. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d).

As defendants removed this case from state court, however, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 81(c) “provides [three] possible avenues around waiver.” Lutz v. Glendale Union

High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2005). First, plaintiff would still be entitled to a

jury trial if he made a proper request under California law before defendants removed the

case. See id. (citing 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.”)). This waiver exception does not apply because plaintiff does not contend that he

made a demand for a jury trial prior to removal.

Second, plaintiff would not have waived his right to a jury trial if his state complaint

already includes a jury demand that satisfies Rule 38(b). See id. Again, plaintiff does not

contend that his complaint includes a demand for trial by jury.

Third, if California law “does not require the parties to make express demands in

order to claim trial by jury, they need not make demands after removal unless the court

directs that they do so.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). The Ninth Circuit has held that California law

requires plaintiffs to make an express demand for a jury trial, Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d

549, 556 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing California Code of Civil Procedure section 631);

accordingly, this exception, too, does not apply.

Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure39(b) 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.” Plaintiff asks the Court to exercise its discretion and order a trial by jury because his

failure to timely demand a jury trial was based on his counsel’s failure to “see the instant file

and its pleadings for approximately one month after the papers were served, due to an office

move. The counsel handling this claim for Plaintiff also was in the process of moving his

residence at the same time.” Plaintiff’s Opposition at 2.

Case 3:04-cv-05267-CRB Document 23 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\5267\order1jurydemand.wpd 3

Despite the broad language of Rule 39(b), the Court does not have discretion to order

a jury trial in these circumstances. In the Ninth Circuit, a court does not have discretion to

order a jury trial despite a party’s failure to timely request a jury if the failure was based on

attorney inadvertence or neglect. See Pacific Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & General Ins.,

239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s untimely demand was the result of

quintessential attorney inadvertence or neglect. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s

untimely oral jury demand is therefore GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005

 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05267-CRB Document 23 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3