Curtis v. Mathews et al

Filing 31

ORDER directing that unless and until Plaintiff consents in writing to a bench trial, the case will be heard by a jury in October. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 9/8/2011. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION MARKUIS DEMETRIUS CURTIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action 7:10-CV-54 (HL) v. JOEY MATHEWS, et al., Defendants. ORDER On September 6, 2011, Defendant Mukul Khurana, M.D. filed a withdrawal of his demand for jury trial. The right to a jury trial must be preserved by making a demand, and unless a a demand is properly filed and served, the right to a trial by jury is waived. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), (d). However, once a jury trial has properly been demanded by by any party, all parties must consent to the withdrawal of the jury demand and stipulate to a bench trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(d), 39(a)(1). Rule 38(d) specifically states states that “[a] proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.” While While Defendant Khurana states that the other Defendants have consented to the withdrawal of the jury demand, nothing indicates that Plaintiff has consented. Even Even though Plaintiff did not make a jury demand of his own, he is entitled to rely on on the demand made by Defendant Khurana. With a jury demand already on the record, Plaintiff also making one would be superfluous. Unless and until Plaintiff consents in writing to this case being tried by the Court, it will be heard by the jury in in October. The parties are reminded of the deadlines set forth in the Court’s order order entered on August 4, 2011. SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of September, 2011. s/Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE mbh 2

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?