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, )

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