The Continental Casualty Company v. Scully et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 55 Continental's Motion to Vacate Order setting Jury Trial and Motion for Separate Trials. The parties shall file their motions in limine on or before January 12, 2012. Opposition briefs shall be filed on or before January 19, 2012. The Court will not accept reply briefs. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 1/3/12. (lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THE CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY,

CASE NO. 09cv1970 DMS (NLS)
Plaintiff,

13
vs.

ORDER DENYING
CONTINENTAL’S MOTION TO
VACATE ORDER SETTING JURY
TRIAL AND MOTION FOR
SEPARATE TRIALS

14
15
16

MIKE SCULLY AND CARLA SCULLY,

17

Defendants.
____________________________________

18

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

[Docket No. 55]

19
20

This case comes before the Court on the motion of The Continental Casualty Company

21

(“Continental”) to vacate the order setting this case for jury trial, or in the alternative, to first set a bench

22

trial on the claims in the Complaint, and then, if necessary, set a jury trial on the claims in the

23

Counterclaim. Mike and Carla Scully filed an opposition to the motion, and Continental filed a reply.

24

For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.

25

I.

26

BACKGROUND

27

This case was recently transferred from the calendar of the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan to this

28

Court. Judge Whelan held a pretrial conference on July 18, 2011, and scheduled the case for trial on
-1-

09cv1970

1

December 6, 2011, before transferring the case to this Court. Two days after the case was transferred,

2

Continental filed the present motion. The trial has been continued to January 23, 2012, to allow the

3

parties an opportunity to brief the present motion, and the Court time to resolve it.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Continental moves to vacate the order setting this case for jury trial, or in the alternative, to set

7

a bench trial on its claims followed by a jury trial on the counterclaims, if necessary. Continental argues

8

there is no constitutional or statutory right to a jury in this case, therefore the entire case should be tried

9

to the Court. Alternatively, Continental asserts its claims should be tried to the Court first, followed by

10

a jury trial on the Scullys’ counterclaims, if necessary. The Scullys respond that they are entitled to a

11

jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment, and that it would be more efficient and economical to

12

try the entire case to a jury.

13

Whether this case should be tried to a jury depends on whether admiralty and non-admiralty

14

federal jurisdiction exists over any of the claims or counterclaims asserted in this case. If the claims

15

sound only in admiralty, then there is no right to a jury trial. However, if a claim arises under the

16

Court’s general civil jurisdiction, then the party asserting that claim has the right to a jury trial.

17

In this case, Continental invoked only the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The

18

Scullys, however, invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Counter-Claim ¶ 4.) Under these

19

circumstances, the Scullys have a right to have their counterclaims tried to a jury. See Wilmington Trust

20

v. United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, 934 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1991) (“... the

21

right to a jury trial as provided by the seventh amendment overcomes another party’s preference for a

22

bench trial when those interests conflict.”) This is so even though Continental elected to proceed under

23

this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction. Id. at 1032. Accordingly, the Court denies Continental’s motion to

24

vacate the order setting this case for a jury trial.

25

Anticipating this conclusion, Continental requests that the Court bifurcate its claims from the

26

Scullys’ counterclaims, and proceed with a bench trial on its claims followed by a jury trial on the

27

counterclaims, if necessary. Continental argues this approach would serve judicial economy, prevent

28

prejudice to Continental and avoid confusion of the issues. The Scullys assert the claims and
-2-

09cv1970

1

counterclaims are based on the same facts, therefore it would be more economical and efficient to try

2

the case once. They also contend that bifurcation will undermine their right to a jury trial, which will

3

prejudice them, not Continental. The Scullys also maintain that any potential confusion of the issues

4

can be addressed through admonitions and instructions to the jury. Considering the facts and issues in

5

the case, the Court agrees with the Scullys that separate trials in this case would not serve “convenience,

6

to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Accordingly, the Court

7

denies Continental’s motion for separate trials.

8

III.

9

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

10

For these reasons, the Court denies Continental’s motion to vacate the order setting this case for

11

jury trial, and denies Continental’s motion for separate trials. In anticipation of trial, the parties shall

12

file their motions in limine on or before January 12, 2012. Opposition briefs shall be filed on or before

13

January 19, 2012. The Court will not accept reply briefs.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 3, 2012

16
17

HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

09cv1970