U. S. Technology Corporation v. Ramsay et al
Filing
87
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion to deny jury demand. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/10/2011 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
U.S. TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
VS.
PLAINTIFF/
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-218(DCB)(JMR)
PAT RAMSAY
and
DELTA LOGGING & COMPANY, INC.
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the defendants Pat Ramsay
and Delta Logging & Company, Inc.’s Motion to Deny Plaintiff’s Jury
Demand (docket entry 79).
Having carefully considered the motion
and response, and being fully advised in the premises the Court
finds as follows:
The defendants object to plaintiff’s demand for jury trial as
to cost recovery and contribution claims under CERCLA because such
claims are equitable in nature.
The defendants also object to the
jury demand as to any claims which are subsumed by the plaintiff’s
CERCLA claims.
In response, U.S. Technology does not contest that
its CERCLA claims should be tried by the Court, not a jury.
However, it asserts that “at least some” of its claims are legal,
not
equitable,
in
nature,
specifically
its
state
law
claims
involving nuisance per se and fraud. The plaintiff further asserts
that some of its state law damages, specifically monetary damages
for fraud, are not subsumed or preempted by CERCLA.
The Court therefore finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a
jury on some, but not all, of its claims. Presently pending before
the Court is the issue of whether the plaintiff can maintain a
private cause of action under Mississippi’s Solid Waste Disposal
Law and Pollution Control Law.
The Court must also determine the
extent to which some of the plaintiff’s claims may be subsumed or
preempted by CERCLA.
The Court will therefore excuse the parties
from submitting jury instructions until further order of the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants Pat Ramsay and Delta
Logging & Company, Inc.’s Motion to Deny Plaintiff’s Jury Demand
(docket entry 79) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set
forth above.
SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of June, 2011.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?