Clark v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company
2:23-cv-05521
| E.D. La. | May 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Harvey Clark filed suit against GeoVera Specialty Insurance for alleged underpayment and bad faith regarding Hurricane Ida-related property damage.
- The original complaint, filed in state court, did not include a jury demand; case was removed to federal court.
- Neither party requested a jury trial in their initial filings, and the time to demand a jury under Federal Rule 38(b) lapsed.
- After unsuccessful mediation, the case was placed on the trial docket for a bench (non-jury) trial scheduled for June 2026, with amendment deadlines in spring 2025.
- Plaintiff hired new counsel and moved to amend his complaint solely to add a jury demand, relying in part on Rule 15, after the time for such demand had expired.
- Defendant opposed, arguing waiver of the jury right and that such amendments are not proper solely to add an untimely jury demand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff can amend complaint to add late jury demand | Clark argues for amendment, citing Rule 15 and subsequently Rule 39(b), and points to lack of prejudice, seeking jury trial as of right. | GeoVera claims amendment is just an untimely jury demand, which is waived under Rule 38 since not demanded within 14 days; Rule 15 doesn't revive right; no new issues raised. | Court treats the motion as under Rule 39(b); applies five-factor Daniel test and grants amendment to allow a jury trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel Int’l Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 916 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir. 1990) (sets out the five factors for allowing untimely jury demands under Rule 39(b))
- Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1964) (court has discretion to relieve waiver of jury trial under Rule 39(b))
- Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 654 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1981) (inadvertence alone does not justify relief from jury waiver, but court retains discretion)
- Fredieu v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 738 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1984) (motions to amend solely to add jury demand are evaluated under Rule 39(b))
- Pinemont Bank v. Belk, 722 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1984) (discretion must be exercised case by case with open mind for untimely jury requests)