Electro-Brand, Inc. v. MEM-CE, LLC
1:17-cv-03554
N.D. Ill.Mar 7, 2018Background
- Electro-Brand sued MEM-CE for breach of a Master Supply Agreement alleging MEM-CE failed to pay for manufactured consumer electronics.
- MEM-CE filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and later added claims including breach of covenant of good faith and a failure-to-inspect claim; operative counterclaims were amended three times.
- MEM-CE failed to serve a written jury demand within 14 days of its last pleading and initially represented in a joint status report that neither party had requested a jury trial.
- MEM-CE filed a written jury demand more than three months after its amended counterclaim, asserting attorney oversight and inadvertence; Electro-Brand moved to strike as untimely and waived.
- The court considered Rule 38(b) and Rule 39(b) factors (whether issues are for a jury, schedule disruption, prejudice, length of delay, and reason for tardiness) and concluded MEM-CE did not show good cause to excuse the untimely demand.
- Court denied MEM-CE’s motion for a jury trial, granted Electro-Brand’s motions to strike the jury demands, and set a date for an expedited bench trial while directing renewed settlement efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEM-CE waived its right to a jury by failing to timely demand one under Rule 38(b) | Electro-Brand: MEM-CE waived the right and its late demand should be struck | MEM-CE: attorney oversight/inadvertence and later amendments justify excusing untimeliness under Rule 39(b) | Court: Waiver occurred; late demand not excused |
| Whether Rule 39(b) discretion should allow an untimely jury demand | Electro-Brand: Court should deny because prejudice, schedule disruption, and lack of good reason | MEM-CE: request should be allowed; issues deserve jury, delay caused by settlement focus | Court: Declined to exercise discretion; factors weigh against MEM-CE |
| Whether MEM-CE’s asserted reason (oversight due to settlement focus) constitutes "good reason" | Electro-Brand: Settlement discussions do not excuse missing Rule 38 deadline; prior joint report showed agreement to waive jury | MEM-CE: oversight/inadvertence while focusing on settlement | Court: "Inadvertence" insufficient; joint status report indicates conscious waiver |
| Whether amended counterclaims revived right to a jury by raising new issues | Electro-Brand: Amendments did not change gravamen; right not revived | MEM-CE (in reply): Amendments raised new issues extending deadline | Court: Amendments did not raise new factual issues to revive jury demand; argument improperly raised in reply |
Key Cases Cited
- Members v. Paige, [citation="140 F.3d 699"] (7th Cir.) (Rule 39(b) requires case-specific, open-minded analysis)
- Long v. Hull, [citation="95 F.3d 1154"] (7th Cir.) (Rule 39(b) grants wide discretion to allow untimely jury demands)
- Merritt v. Faulkner, [citation="697 F.2d 761"] (7th Cir.) (same principle on broad discretion under Rule 39(b))
- Olympia Express, Inc. v. Linee Aeree Italiane S.P.A., [citation="509 F.3d 347"] (7th Cir.) (mere inadvertence does not justify relief from untimely jury demand; need good reason)
- Ma v. Community Bank, [citation="686 F.2d 459"] (7th Cir.) (general rule that inadvertence alone insufficient to excuse waiver of jury right)
- Communications Maintenance, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., [citation="761 F.2d 1202"] (7th Cir.) (amended pleadings that do not raise new factual issues do not revive right to jury trial)