Batte v. Southwest Airlines

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Breyer granting 11 motion to strike jury demand; denying 13 motion for jury trial. (crblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AUNDREA BATTE, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No. 17-cv-06410-CRB v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL [DKT. 11] AND DENYING MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL [DKT. 13] The parties have filed two motions regarding a late-filed jury demand by Plaintiff 14 Aundrea Batte (“Batte”). Defendant Southwest Airlines (“Southwest”) moves to strike the 15 demand, while Batte moves the Court to, in its discretion, order a jury trial despite the late- 16 filed demand. Because Batte’s failure to make a timely demand was based on a good-faith 17 mistake of law, the Court lacks discretion to order a jury trial. Accordingly, it DENIES 18 Batte’s motion and GRANTS Southwest’s. 19 In cases that have been removed from state court, a party demanding a jury trial 20 must serve and file the demand within 14 days of serving or being served with the notice 21 of removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) & 81(C)(3)(b). The district court has some 22 discretion to order a jury trial even in the absence of a proper demand, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 39(b), but this discretion is narrow, Pac. Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins., Ltd., 239 24 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001). Where a party has failed to make a timely demand, the 25 court may only order a jury trial if that failure was based on “some cause beyond mere 26 inadvertence.” Id. The court has no discretion to do so where the failure was due to a 27 party’s inadvertence, oversight, or good-faith mistake of law. Id. at 1002–03. 28 Batte concedes that she did not serve and file her demand within 14 days of being

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?