United States Of America v. Simon et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Jury Trial Demand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 7/20/2018. See attached document for full details. (js02)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-24285-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
VILBRUN SIMON,
SAINTANISE AGENORD,
WILCIENNE PIERRE, and
SIMON ACCOUNTING & TAX
SERVICES, LLC
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ JURY DEMAND
This matter is before the Court on the United States of America’s (“Plaintiff”)
motion to strike Vilbrun Simon’s, Saintanise Agenord’s, Wilcienne Pierre’s, and
Simon Accounting & Tax Services, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) jury trial
demand. [D.E. 22]. After careful consideration of the motion, relevant authority,
and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ jury
trial demand is GRANTED.1

Because no response was filed in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the
relief requested may also be granted by default under Local Rule 7.1. See, e.g.,
Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Shomers, 2010 WL 11506256, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9,
2010) (granting motion to strike jury trial demand by default under Local Rule 7.1).
1
1

I.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed this action on November 28, 2017 [D.E. 1] against Defendants
seeking injunctions under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants engaged in fraudulent practices as tax return preparers to
minimize the amount of tax that customers reported and to maximum their
customers’ refunds.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ schemes also included

fabricating business income, claiming falsified itemized deductions, and claiming
tax credits for their customers that they were not eligible to claim. As a result,
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing to prepare federal tax returns
and engaging in other specified conduct.
In their answer to the complaint, Defendants demanded a jury trial.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants are not entitled to a jury trial because injunctive
relief is an equitable remedy.

Plaintiff further argues that the Federal Rules

provide for a jury trial only where the right to a jury is protected under the Seventh
Amendment or “provided by a federal statute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a). Because the
Seventh Amendment is not implicated here, and there is no federal statute that
authorizes a jury trial for injunctive relief claims, Plaintiff concludes that
Defendants’ jury demand must be stricken.
“[T]he right to a jury trial in the federal court is to be determined as a matter
of federal law.” Phillips v. Kaplus, 764 F.2d 807, 812 (11th Cir. 1985).

Rule

38 provides for a jury trial only where the right is “declared by the Seventh
2

Amendment to the Constitution” or “provided by a federal statute.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
38(a). Rule 39(a) clarifies that, when a jury trial is demanded, the action must be
tried by a jury on all issues so demanded “unless . . . the court, on motion or on its
own, finds that on some or all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury
trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2). Determining whether a right to a jury trial exists
turns on whether the claims were historically cognizable at law or considered
equitable. Phillips, 764 F.2d at 813. “For those claims which traditionally were
cognizable at law, the right to a jury is generally preserved; for those claims which
historically were considered equitable, no jury trial is mandated.” Id. In other
words, “the right to a jury trial does not extend to cases in which only equitable
rights are at stake.” Waldrop v. S. Co. Servs., 24 F.3d 152, 156 (11th Cir. 1994)
(citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s arguments are well taken because the only relief sought in
the complaint is an injunction against Defendants – which is an equitable remedy
that is not entitled to a jury trial. The Eleventh Circuit has also held that “a right
to a jury trial does not exist for suits seeking only injunctive relief, which is purely
equitable in nature.” FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc., 838 F.3d 1071, 1088
(11th Cir. 2016) (citing City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526
U.S. 687, 719 (1999); CBS Broad., Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 450 F.3d 505,
517 n.25 (11th Cir. 2006)). Because the Eleventh Circuit has decided the question
presented and held that a right to a jury trial does not exist for complaints seeking
3

only injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ jury trial demand is
GRANTED.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ jury trial demand is GRANTED. [D.E. 22].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 20th day of
July, 2018.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge

4