Maher et al v. Creighton St. Joseph Regional Healthcare System, L.L.C. et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting Motion to Strike Jury Demand 29 on Plaintiffs' claims for recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court may, however, try the plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act claims with an advisory jury. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (BHC)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CINDY MAHER and RON MAHER, Plaintiffs, 8:13CV9 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CREIGHTON ST. JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.L.C., ANDREW MYRTUE, M.D.; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. The United States has moved to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demand on their claims for recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Filing No. 29). The plaintiffs have not responded to the motion, and the deadline for responding has passed. The motion is fully submitted. Parties are not entitled to a jury trial in most actions against the United States, (see 28 U.S.C. § 2402), including actions pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act. U.S. v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696, 701 n. 10 (1961) (“There is no right to a jury trial under the Tort Claims Act.”). See also Mader v. U.S., 654 F.3d 794, 797 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2011) (“FTCA actions must be tried to a judge, not a jury”). The United States’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s jury demand on the FTCA claims will be granted. Recognizing that at least part of the plaintiffs’ claims will be tried to a jury, the United States further moves to prohibit the court from permitting that jury to render an advisory decision on the FTCA claims. Under Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “In all actions not triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c). The court is permitted, in its discretion, to consider the determination of an advisory jury when deciding claims against the United States. See, e.g., Harris v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Army, 119 F.3d 1313, 1320 (8th Cir 1997). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) The United States’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demand on their claims for recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act, (Filing No. 29), is granted. 2) The court may, however, try the plaintiffs’ FTCA claims with an advisory jury. June 26, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge *This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 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?