Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. McInnis et al

Filing 85

ORDER REGARDING JURY TRIAL DEMAND. Signed by Judge Koh on 6/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of mailing)(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. THOMAS RICH MCINNIS, et al., Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-01614-LHK ORDER REGARDING JURY TRIAL DEMAND 17 This case is currently set for a jury trial to commence June 20, 2011. However, in 18 reviewing the docket, it appears that Defendants have waived any right to a jury trial by failing to 19 properly serve and file a demand for a jury trial. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 38(b), a party may demand a jury trial by: 21 23 (1) serving the other parties with a written demand--which may be included in a pleading--no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and (2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d). 24 It does not appear that Defendants demanded a jury trial, either in their Answer or through any 25 other document filed with the Court. 22 26 Pursuant to Rule 39(b), when a jury trial is not properly demanded, the issues are to be tried 27 by the court without a jury. The district court has limited discretion to order a jury trial, upon 28 motion, where a jury trial was not properly demanded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). “That discretion is 1 Case No.: 10-CV-01614-LHK ORDER REGARDING JURY TRIAL DEMAND 1 narrow, however, and does not permit a court to grant relief when the failure to make a timely 2 demand results from an oversight or inadvertence.” Pac. Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins. 3 Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 556-57 (9th 4 Cir. 1983)). A pro se litigant’s good faith mistake as to the deadline for demanding a jury trial is 5 not a sufficient basis to grant relief from an untimely jury demand. Zivkovic v. Southern California 6 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Accordingly, it appears that this case must be tried by the Court, and not a jury. If Defendants believe that they served and filed a jury demand in compliance with Rule 38, they must 9 notify the Court and provide documentation showing proper service and filing of the demand by 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 Monday, June 6, 2011. Otherwise, the case will be tried by the Court on June 20, 2011 at 9 a.m. 11 In order to ensure that Defendants receive timely notice of this deadline, court staff will call 12 Defendants and inform them of this Order. A copy of this Order will also be mailed to Defendants’ 13 addresses. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 1, 2011 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 10-CV-01614-LHK ORDER REGARDING JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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?