Anthony v. Helix Alliance Decom, et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Strike Defendants' Jury Demand. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/15/2023. (cs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLIFFORD ANTHONY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-1400

HELIX ALLIANCE DECOM, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ jury
demand.1 The motion is unopposed.2 Defendants’ decision not to oppose
the motion may be treated as consent to a nonjury trial. See Moser v. Tex.
Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1980); Gilmore v. Lake
Charles PC, L.P., No. 15-4098, 2016 WL 3039813, at *2 (E.D. La. May 27,
2016). Further, plaintiff elected to file his original and amended complaints
as admiralty and maritime actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(h).3 Accordingly, “there is no right to a jury trial” in this case. T.N.T.
Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585,
587 (5th Cir. 1983); see Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9
F.4th 289, 295 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Had [plaintiff] made a proper Rule 9(h)

1
2
3

R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 26.
R. Doc. 1 ¶ 5; R. Doc. 29 ¶ 5.

designation . . . the district [court] could have simply denied [plaintiff’s] jury
demand.”); Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181, 196 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting
that “[n]o statute, rule, or constitutional provision confers . . . a right” to a
jury trial in claims brought under admiralty jurisdiction).
Because defendants do not oppose the motion to strike, and because
the Court finds that there is no federal right to a jury trial in this action,
plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ demand for a jury trial is GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
15th day of November, 2023.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2