Latham v. West Corporation et al

Filing 34

ORDER Plaintiff's 31 request for a jury trial is construed as a demand for a jury trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's request is denied to the extent it may be construed as a motion. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/24/09.(ESL)

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

Sheila Latham, Plaintiff, vs. West Corporation, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-08-2323-PHX-DGC ORDER

Sheila Latham commenced this employment discrimination action by filing a pro se complaint against her former employer, West Corporation (a/k/a West Direct II, Inc.). Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a request for a jury trial (Dkt. #31), which the Court will construe as a demand for a jury trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The question of whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, and on what issues, will be addressed during pretrial proceedings if the case is not otherwise resolved through settlement or the resolution of dispositive motions. The Court will deny Plaintiff's request to the extent it may be construed as motion for a jury trial. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's request for a jury trial (Dkt. #31) is construed as a demand for a jury trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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.

Plaintiff's request is denied to the extent it may be construed as a motion.

DATED this 24th day of November, 2009.

-2-