Gulf Bay Capital, Inc. v. Textron Financial Corporation
Filing
114
OPINION AND ORDER denying 87 motion to correct case management and scheduling order; denying as moot 112 motion to stay. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/20/2016. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GULF BAY CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-209-FtM-29CM
TEXTRON
CORPORATION,
FINANCIAL
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion to
Correct Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #87) filed on
April 7, 2016.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc.
#103) on April 25, 2016, and defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #107)
on May 3, 2016, with leave of Court.
Because the Case Management
and Scheduling Order is accurate, there is nothing to correct and
the motion is denied.
On May 18, 2016, defendant filed a Motion
to Stay Those Pretrial Deadlines Dependent on Whether Trial is a
Jury or Non-Jury Trial (Doc. #112) seeking to stay the requirement
to exchange jury instructions, verdict forms, and voir dire, and
to submit a trial brief until such time as the issue is decided.
This is a state court case which was removed to federal court
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(Doc. #1.)
Neither the
Complaint (Doc. #2) nor the Answer (Doc. #5) contain a demand for
a jury trial.
Nonetheless, the Case Management Report (Doc. #12)
filed on June 2, 2014, and signed by counsel for both parties,
states that the parties agreed to a jury trial, and estimated its
length at five days (Doc. #12, p. 2).
As a result, the June 9,
2014,
Order
Case
Management
and
Scheduling
scheduled the case as a jury trial.
(Doc.
#15,
p.
2)
Defendant now seeks to
“correct” this order because the Intercreditor Agreement waived
the
right
to
trial
by
jury.
Defendant
asks
that
the
Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #15), and Amended Case
Management
and
Scheduling
Order
(Doc.
#50)
to
the
extent
it
incorporates the prior Scheduling Order, be amended to reflect
that there is no jury demand.
Because the parties jointly agreed to a jury trial in a
document filed with the Court despite the known provision in the
Intercreditor Agreement, the Court finds that a jury trial was
sufficiently asserted.
A written demand for trial by jury is not
limited to the pleadings and is made upon service to the other
party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
Without the consent of all parties
to proceed to a nonjury trial, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d), 39(a)(1),
the Case Management Report contained a clear demand and was signed
by counsel for defendant, see KnightBrook Ins. Co. v. Payless Car
Rental Sys., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d 965, 983-84 (D. Ariz. 2014) (the
parties
filed
a
Joint
Case
Management
Report
that
confirmed
defendants’ understanding that no jury trial had been requested
unless plaintiff later requested one, and therefore there was a
clear waiver of defendant’s right to a jury trial).
The Court
will not allow defendant to change its mind or to correct a mistake
- 2 -
which it has allowed to remain for almost two years.
The motion
is denied.
Defendant does raise a collateral issue in its Reply which is
outside the scope of its motion to correct.
Defendant asserts
that plaintiff has no right to a jury trial because all the claims
are equitable in nature.
This touches on different issues than
mere correction of a scheduling order, including whether all the
claims are equitable in nature, whether this characterization
alone is sufficient to determine a right to a jury trial, and
whether the parties can agree to a jury trial where no such right
would otherwise exist.
None of these matters, and perhaps others,
are properly before the Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's
Motion
to
Correct
Case
Management
and
Scheduling Order (Doc. #87) is DENIED.
2. Defendant’s
Motion
to
Stay
Those
Pretrial
Deadlines
Dependent on Whether Trial is a Jury or Non-Jury Trial
(Doc. #112) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of May, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 3 -
20th
day
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?