Rand v. InfoNow Corporation et al

Filing 28

MINUTE ORDER denying 25 Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Jury Demand, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/26/2015.(slibi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-01631-MSK-MJW NAHUM RAND, Plaintiff, v. INFONOW CORPORATION, d/b/a Channelinsight, DOES I through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Jury Demand (Docket No. 25) is DENIED, for the following reasons. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c) governs the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to removed actions; Rule 81(c)(3) provides specific rules for jury demands. Plaintiff rests his argument on the second sentence of Rule 81(c)(3)(A), which states: If the state law did not require an express demand for a jury trial, a party need not make one after removal . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(A). If that section applies, Plaintiff can make his demand at any time allowed by the Court. If not, the 14-day deadlines that exist elsewhere in the Rules apply. W. Ridge Grp., L.L.C. v. First Trust Co. of Onaga, 2008 WL 5156437, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 9, 2008) objections overruled, 2009 WL 641268 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009), and aff'd on this point, 414 F. App'x 112, 115-17 (10th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff argues that Rule 81(c)(3)(A)’s second sentence applies because Nevada law does not require an express jury demand until the first order setting a trial date. But as Defendant correctly points out, Nevada law does require an express demand, even if the deadline is comparatively late. Thus, the second sentence of Rule 81(c)(3)(A) does not apply. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Shotgun Nevada Investments, LLC, 2014 WL 5410777 (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2014); Nascimento v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 4500410 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2011); Kaldor v. Skolnik, 2010 WL 5441999 (D. Nev. Dec. 28, 2010). There is no dispute here that Plaintiff failed to comply with any applicable 14-day deadline. Further, Plaintiff makes no argument for a discretionary jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. If this case proceeds to trial, it will be a bench trial. Date: October 26, 2015

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?