Richardson v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 16

ORDER granting pla's 11 Motion for trial by jury. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/26/10. (Reference: Both cases)(bbc, ) Modified on 4/26/2010 to edit doc type (bbc, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLIFTON D. RICHARDSON VERSUS U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO: 09-7383 SECTION: R(1)

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Clifton Richardson filed a pro se complaint against defendant U.S. Bank National Association on November 25, 2009.1 The complaint alleged that Richardson was the winning

bidder in a sheriff's sale of property located at 9348 Water Tower Street in Convent, Louisiana on November 1, 2006, but that the Saint James Parish sheriff's office refused to issue him a deed to the property. The complaint sought to enjoin or unwind a On

transfer of this property to U.S. Bank on November 23, 2009.

February 19, 2010, Richardson filed an amended complaint naming Willy J. Martin, sheriff of St. James Parish, as an additional

1

(R. 1.)

defendant.2 claim.

The amended complaint asserts a breach of contract

Neither the complaint nor the amended complaint includes On March 25, 2010, Martin answered Richardson's On April 8, 2010, Richardson moved for trial

a jury demand.

amended complaint. by jury.3

Martin opposes the motion on grounds that Richardson

did not file a timely jury demand. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must demand a jury trial "no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served."4 Typically, the "last

pleading directed to" an issue is an answer or reply to a counterclaim.5 A party waives his right to a jury trial if a

demand is not properly served and filed.6 Richardson has not waived his right to a jury trial. Richardson filed his motion for trial by jury on April 8, 2010 -exactly 14 days after Martin filed his answer. Martin's answer Because

is the "last pleading directed to" Richardson's claims.7

2 3 4 5

(R. 6.) (R. 11, 12.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1).

In re Texas Gen. Petroleum Corp, 52 F.3d 1330, 1336 (5th Cir. 1995).
6 7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). In re Texas Gen., 52 F.3d at 1336. 2

Richardson's jury demand was filed no later than 14 days after Martin filed his answer, the demand was timely under Rule 38(b). Martin points out that "amended pleadings that do not introduce new issues of fact do not renew a right to jury trial that has been waived," but this is a red herring.8 Richardson has not

waived his right to a jury trial with respect to his original complaint because U.S. Bank still has not answered Richardson's original complaint.9 The Court finds that Richardson filed a timely jury demand and therefore GRANTS Richardson's motion for trial by jury.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of April, 2010. __

_________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9

Id.

See McCarthy v. Bronson, 906 F.2d 835, 840 (2d Cir. 1990) ("In this case, no answer was filed to either the original complaint or the first amended complaint. The answer to the second amended complaint was not filed until August 26, 1985, after plaintiff had made a jury demand. There was thus no waiver by reason of a late demand."). 3