Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02809/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02809-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance 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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lori Huffman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance

Company, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2809-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial

(doc. 15), plaintiff's response and motion for court to exercise discretion pursuant to Rule

39(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. and order the case be tried to a jury (doc. 20), defendants' reply in

support of the motion to strike (doc. 24) and response to the motion to exercise discretion

(doc. 25), and plaintiff's reply in support of the motion to exercise discretion (doc. 31).

Defendants move to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial as untimely under Rules

38(b) and 81(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff admits it was untimely, but argues that had this

action not been removed or her motion to amend been granted, she could have timely

demanded a jury trial.

Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is untimely under either Rule 38(b) or 81(c), Fed.

R. Civ. P. Defendants removed this action and filed their answer on December 30, 2010.

Rule 38(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. affords a party 14 days from the day the last pleading directed to

the issue is served to file a demand for a jury trial. Similarly, Rule 81(c)(3)(B) requires a

jury demand within 14 days after the notice of removal is filed. Yet, plaintiff did not file a

Case 2:10-cv-02809-FJM Document 36 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

jury demand until March 10, 2011 (doc. 11). Accordingly, plaintiff waived her right to trial

by jury. See Rule 38(d), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Plaintiff alternatively asks that we exercise our discretion under Rule 39(b), Fed. R.

Civ. P., to allow a jury trial even where no demand has been made. Plaintiff notes that this

case is at its early stages, is the kind of case typically tried to a jury, and defendants will not

be prejudiced. Defendants assert that our discretion under Rule 39(b) is extremely narrow.

Because plaintiff cannot point to any reason other than mistake or inadvertence to explain

the untimely demand, defendants argue that we must deny the motion.

We agree with plaintiff that her request for a jury comes at an early stage of the

proceeding, would not prejudice defendants, and would not prejudice the system because our

firm trial date is not until June 19, 2012. However, the Ninth Circuit has narrowly and

rigidly construed Rule 39(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. "An untimely request for a jury trial must be

denied unless some cause beyond mere inadvertence is shown." See Pacific Fisheries Corp.

v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Russ v. Standard Ins.

Co., 120 F.3d 988, 989-90 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court could not use

another rule to grant an untimely demand for a jury trial and circumvent the Ninth Circuit's

narrow interpretation of Rule 39(b)). Even falling into the removal trap is not good cause.

See Pacific Fisheries, 239 F.3d at 1002-03. Thus, while we would ordinarily order a jury

trial under the plain language of Rule 39(b), Ninth Circuit precedent prevents us from doing

so. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to strike (doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to exercise discretion pursuant

to Rule 39(b) (doc. 20). Finally, it is ORDERED AMENDING the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order such that the case shall be tried to the court.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02809-FJM Document 36 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 2