Opinion ID: 1704754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: History of Article 1732(1)

Text: When the Code of Civil Procedure was adopted in 1960, La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 1733(1) (1963) denied a jury trial, based on a monetary threshold, in  [a] suit demanding less than one thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs. By La. Acts 1983, No. 534, the Legislature made three changes: (1) the enumeration of cases in which a jury trial is unavailable was moved to Article 1732(1); (2) the statutory standard for determining the monetary threshold for a jury trial was changed from suit demanding to amount in dispute is; and (3) the monetary threshold was increased to $5,000. [2] Revision Comment (b) to the 1983 amendment, which was proposed by the Louisiana State Law Institute, stated: This increase [in the monetary threshold] is appropriate in the light of the increasing cost of jury trials and is in keeping with the expanded jurisdiction of city courts and parish courts in which there is no right to a jury trial. See Arts. 4842, 4843, and 4871. In addition, the phrase amount in dispute is used to emphasize that it is the amount demanded in good faith by the plaintiff which shall determine whether there is a right to a trial by jury and not simply the amount of plaintiff's demand. See Arts. 4 and 4841 and cases decided thereunder. This court discussed the 1983 amendment in Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, 525 So.2d 527 (La.1988). In Cambridge Corner, the plaintiff filed suit for accelerated rent and other items totaling $10,074, plus attorney fees. At the time suit was filed, the monetary threshold for a jury trial was $10,000, and the defendant demanded a jury trial. The plaintiff then amended its petition to reduce the amount demanded to $8,698, plus attorney fees, and later moved to dismiss the jury. This court held that the right to a jury trial does not depend on the amount initially demanded, but depends on the amount over which a good faith dispute presently exists. This court noted that the amount initially demanded, even if good faith, may be changed if the parties become aware during the discovery and preparation for trial that the value of the claim is actually worth more or less than originally demanded, or if part of the claim is settled before trial. [3] The gravamen of the Cambridge Corner decision was that the right to a jury trial is determined by the value of the good faith demand of the plaintiff, measured at the time that the right to jury trial is litigated and not necessarily at the time of the occurrence or transaction or at the time of the filing of the original petition. By La. Acts 1989, No. 107, the Legislature reworded the statutory standard for the monetary threshold for the availability of a jury trial from the amount in dispute does not exceed to the amount of no individual petitioner's cause of action exceeds. The amendment was not one that was proposed by the Louisiana State Law Institute, and there was no revision comment explaining the purpose of the amendment. It is now this court's task to determine that purpose.