Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.
4:18-cv-07542
N.D. Cal.Sep 27, 2019Background
- Haley filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court on Oct. 24, 2018 and did not demand a jury; defendant was served on Nov. 14, 2018.
- Clark answered and removed the action to federal court on Dec. 14, 2018.
- Plaintiff first requested a jury trial in the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement on Mar. 13, 2019 (well after removal and the answer).
- The Court’s May 2019 scheduling order set a March 23, 2020 jury trial; Clark moved to modify the order to make the trial a bench trial, arguing Haley waived his jury right.
- Haley failed to timely oppose the motion, later opposing and citing counsel illness; he argued the JCMS was a proper jury demand.
- Applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 38/81 and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court found Haley’s demand untimely and not excused by inadvertence, granted Clark’s motion, and reset a 3-day bench trial for March 23, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haley made a timely jury demand under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38/81 | Haley: JCMS (Mar. 13, 2019) was the first opportunity to state a jury demand and suffices | Clark: No written demand within 14 days after answer/removal; right waived | Court: Demand was untimely under Rules 38 and 81 and therefore waived |
| Whether the court should exercise discretion to permit an untimely jury demand (including via Rule 6(b)) | Haley: Excuse the delay due to counsel illness; extend time under Rule 6(b) | Clark: Ninth Circuit law bars relief for mere inadvertence; discretion is narrow | Court: Declined to grant relief; inadvertence/oversight insufficient; ordered bench trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Pac. Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins., Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court’s discretion to grant untimely jury demand is narrow; inadvertence inadequate)
- Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (untimely jury request not excused by inadvertence)
- Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (good-faith mistake about deadlines amounts to mere inadvertence)
- Kletzelman v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 91 F.3d 68 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial appropriate where failure was inadvertent)
- Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1983) (same)
- Chandler Supply Co. v. GAF Corp., 650 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1980) (attorney being "swamped" is not an excuse for missing jury-demand deadline)
- Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975) (discretion under Rule 6(b) to allow untimely jury request should rarely be exercised)