Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1878204.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:55:52+00:00

Document:
TAMESHA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RGA HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant - Appellant.
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Ms. Tamesha Williams sued her former employer, RGA Home Health Services, Inc., for breach of contract. On this claim, Magistrate Judge Watanabe granted partial summary judgment to Ms. Williams on liability, leaving the amount of damages to be decided at trial. RGA verbally requested a jury trial on damages. But the court told RGA to request a jury trial in a reply to Ms. Williams's brief on damages. No such reply brief was filed, so the magistrate judge treated the damages calculation in Ms. Williams's brief as uncontested and awarded damages of $85,900. Afterward, RGA moved to set aside the judgment based on the denial of a jury trial. This motion was denied.
• the magistrate judge erred in refusing to set aside the judgment based on the erroneous denial of a jury trial.
We reject both contentions. RGA admitted that a contract existed and that a reasonable factfinder could have found a breach of the contract. In addition, RGA failed to properly demand a jury trial on damages. For these reasons, we affirm.
The award of partial summary judgment was correct.
A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Cillo v. City of Greenwood Vill., 739 F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, RGA. Cillo, 739 F.3d at 461.
RGA argues that Ms. Williams was terminated for tardiness, pointing to a tardiness policy that required punctuality. Under the policy, termination was allowed for tardiness but only after successive verbal and written warnings.
1. The tardiness policy was part of a contract.
2. In response to a charge of discrimination, RGA stated that Ms. Williams had been terminated for violating the tardiness policy.
3. RGA policy required RGA officers to warn employees for policy violations.
4. Ms. Williams did not receive a warning about tardiness before her termination.
These undisputed facts entitled Ms. Williams to partial summary judgment on liability.
RGA also appeals the district court's refusal to set aside the judgment based on the denial of a jury trial on damages. At the final pretrial conference, RGA verbally requested a jury to determine damages. Magistrate Judge Watanabe stated that such a request should be included in RGA's reply to Ms. Williams's brief on damages. But RGA never filed a reply or a written jury demand. Because Ms. Williams's brief on damages was uncontested, Magistrate Judge Watanabe granted damages to Ms. Williams in the amount that she had requested. RGA filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied. RGA appeals this denial.
We review the denial for an abuse of discretion. ClearOne Comm'ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735, 754 (10th Cir. 2011). We will find an abuse of discretion only if the district court committed an error that was “ ‘definite, clear or unmistakable.’ ” Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., 426 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 2005)).
We conclude that the magistrate judge acted within his discretion. A party can obtain a jury trial on timely demand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). This demand must be in writing, served, and filed with the court. Id. But the right to a jury trial is waivable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). Here RGA waived a jury trial by failing to file a written jury demand. See id. (“A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly served and filed.”); Vesper Const. Co. v. Rain for Rent, Inc., 602 F.2d 238, 241 (10th Cir. 1979) (“Rain's failure to file a timely jury demand pursuant to [Rule] 38(b)[ ] constituted a waiver of its right to jury trial.”). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to set aside the judgment.
1. Ms. Williams and the district court stated that Colorado law applies, and RGA has not challenged the applicability of Colorado law.
2. RGA apparently acknowledges that it failed to present this argument in district court, for RGA states that the plain-error standard applies. This standard applies only when the appellant failed to preserve an argument in district court. E.g., United States ex rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 624 F.3d 1275, 1284 (10th Cir. 2010).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.