Cleveland v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/17/2017 DENYING 29 Request for 30-day Extension of Time. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOMINGO L. CLEVELAND, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-02308-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,

15

Defendant.

16
17

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On

18

November 16, 2017, plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of time to respond to defendant’s

19

demand for a jury trial. ECF No. 29. Jury demands are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, which

20

requires that a jury demand must be made by “serving the other parties with a written demand—

21

which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the

22

issue is served” and filing that pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1). A jury demand in an answer,

23

even if the demand is buried in the answer, complies with the Rule. Lutz v. Glendale Union High

24

Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Gargiulo v. Delsole, 769 F.2d 77, 78–79 (2d

25

Cir.1985)).
Defendant properly included a jury demand in its answer. ECF No. 23. No responsive

26
27

pleading is required or contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no

28

////
1

1

deadline to be extended. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request a 30-day extension of time, ECF No. 29

2

at 1, is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2017.

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