Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471

Raenora Riley filed a medical negligence action against Luat D. Duckett, M.D., in Prince George’s County.
The central issue is whether a completed case information report with a jury-trial election, filed with the complaint but not served, can demand a jury trial under Rule 2-325.
The Court of Special Appeals held the case information report could be used to demand a jury trial; the Circuit Court had ruled otherwise.
Riley checked the “yes” box for a jury trial on the information report, but the photocopy was not served on Duckett.
A scheduling order later indicated a jury trial, and Duckett moved to amend to a bench trial, arguing no proper demand was timely made.
The Court reverses, holding that the information report is not a paper or pleading, was not served, and thus cannot constitute a proper or timely jury-demand under Rule 2-325(a)-(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a case information report is a paper under Rule 2-325(a).	Riley argues it functions as a jury-demand vehicle.	Duckett contends it is not a paper or pleading to demand a jury.	Case information report is not a paper.
Whether checking the jury box on a case information report constitutes a proper jury-demand under Rule 2-325(a).	Election occurred via the information report.	Election must be a separate paper or separately titled pleading, served.	Not a proper or timely demand.
Whether service of the jury demand is required for effectiveness under Rule 2-325.	Notice to opposing party occurred when the scheduling order reflected a jury trial.	Service or notice to the opposing party is essential; lack of service invalidates the demand.	Service/notice requirement not met; demand waived.
Whether the plaintiff waived the right to a jury trial by failing to timely file a proper demand.	Rule 2-325 aims to preserve the jury right with proper notice.	Failure to timely file a proper demand constitutes waiver.	Waiver due to improper demand and lack of timely, served filing.

Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690 (Md. 1984) (form-based jury demands; lack of service questioned)
Dallas v. Environmental Health Associates, LTD, 77 Md. App. 350 (Md. App. 1988) (district-to-circuit transfer; timing of jury demand)
Bringe v. Collins, 274 Md. 338 (Md. 1975) (waiver when no timely jury demand)
Deyesu v. Donhauser, 156 Md. App. 124 (Md. App. 2004) (waiver for failure to timely demand)
Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (Md. 2004) (statutory interpretation of procedures; Rule 2-325 context)
Impala Platinum, Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc., 283 Md. 296 (Md. 1978) (open questions about jury-demand timing and form)