Adams v. Magical Cruise Company, Limited

Filing 39

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Strike demand for jury trial. The case will be tried by the Court without a jury. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 11/2/2016. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SANDRA E. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-282-Orl-37TBS

MAGICAL CRUISE COMPANY,
LIMITED,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Defendant’s
Unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 38). Defense counsel
represents that he has discussed the motion with counsel for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff
does “not object or concur with the requested relief.” (Id., at 4).
Plaintiff alleges that “[t]his is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as
hereinafter more fully stated and is within the meaning of Rule 9(h).” (Doc. 1, ¶ 3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) provides:
(h) Admiralty or Maritime Claim.
(1) How Designated. If a claim for relief is within the admiralty
or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court's subjectmatter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may
designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for
purposes of Rule 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental
Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture
Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those
purposes, whether or not so designated.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(e) states that: “These rules do not create a right
to a jury trial on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h).”

In Waring v. Clarke, the Supreme Court found that the Seventh Amendment’s
preservation of the right to trial by jury in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds
$20 does not include admiralty cases. 46 U.S. 441, 459-60 (1847); see also St. Paul Fire
and Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc., 561 F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he
pleader has the right to determine procedural consequences(including the right to a jury
trial) by a simple statement in his pleading that the claim is an admiralty claim.”);
Beiswenger Enter. Corp. v. Caletta, 86 F.3d 1032, 1037 (11th Cir. 1996) (“In limitation
proceedings, as in all admiralty cases, there is no right to a jury trial.”). Accordingly, and
because Plaintiff has elected to not oppose the motion, Defendant’s motion to strike is
GRANTED, the jury trial demand is STRICKEN from Plaintiff’s complaint, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order is modified to reflect that this is a non-jury case, and
the Court will try the case without a jury.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 2, 2016.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-2-