Oldham v. OK Farms, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER AND OPINION by Judge Ronald A. White: granting 18 Defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Trial; denying 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial; resetting case for Non-Jury Trial on 8/30/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, Room 224, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Judge Ronald A. White (cjt, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EARL OLDHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CIV-15-384-RAW

O.K. FARMS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER & OPINION 1
Before the court is Defendant’s motion to strike the jury trial [Docket No. 18] and
Plaintiff’s motion for jury trial 2 [Docket No. 21]. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant
entered a “contract for broiler production.” The contract includes the following waiver of trial
by jury:
IF ANY MATTERS IN DISPUTE ARE REQUIRED TO BE SETTLED BY
LITIGATION, SUCH TRIALS WILL BE DECIDED BY A JUDGE. THE PARTIES
WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY SUCH ACTION(S) AND CONFIRM THAT THIS
WAIVER IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO THEIR BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS.
Docket No. 23, Exh. 1, p. 11 (emphasis in contract). The contract also includes an arbitration
clause and provides conflicting choice of venue provisions – one stating that any action shall be
brought in the federal judicial district in which the principal part of the performance takes place,
the other stating that any action shall be brought in the state or federal district court in the county
of Sebastian, Arkansas. Id. at 3 and 9-11.

1

For clarity and consistency herein, when the court cites to the record, it uses the pagination assigned by

CM/ECF.
2

Plaintiff included his motion for jury trial with his response to Defendant’s motion to strike the jury trial.
The court directs Plaintiff to Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), which directs that each motion, application, or objection shall
be a separate pleading. Nevertheless, as the court herein grants Defendant’s motion, it denies Plaintiff’s.

Defendant concedes that the arbitration clause is unenforceable and states that Plaintiff
complied with the choice of venue provision. The court agrees. The arbitration provision in the
contract does not comply with 7 U.S.C. § 197c. Plaintiff brought the action in Haskell County
where his farm is located and the principal part of the performance was to take place under the
contract. Given the conflicting provisions, Plaintiff could have filed suit in either venue
specified.
Defendant argues, however, that the waiver of trial by jury clause in the contract is
enforceable. The court agrees. Plaintiff does not argue that the clause is inconspicuous or that
there was a gross disparity in bargaining power. See Telum, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton Credit Corp.,
859 F.2d 835, 837 (10th Cir. 1988)(also noting that the “right to a jury trial in the federal courts
is governed by federal law” and that contracts “waiving the right to trial by jury are neither
illegal nor contrary to public policy”). In fact, the clause is conspicuous in bold and underlined
as shown above. Moreover, the court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff is unsophisticated or
that there was otherwise any gross disparity in bargaining power.
Plaintiff argues simply that by seeking to enforce the waiver of jury trial clause and not
the arbitration clause or venue clause, Defendant is picking and choosing. As noted above, the
arbitration clause is unenforceable and Plaintiff complied with one of the two venue provisions
in the contract. Defendant has the right to seek enforcement of the waiver of jury trial.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to strike the jury trial [Docket No.18] is hereby
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for jury trial [Docket No. 21] is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2016.

2