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)

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