Lisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co.
101 A.3d 530
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Lisy Corporation sued Barry A. Adams and McCormick & Co., alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, and trade-secret claims; Lisy served a civil non-domestic case information report (CIR) with its complaint and checked the “Jury Demand: Yes” box but did not file a separate jury demand paper or include a jury demand in a pleading.
- The Court of Appeals decided Duckett v. Riley while this case was pending; Duckett held that a CIR is neither a "paper" nor a "pleading" under Md. Rule 2-325(a) and, because it was not served on the opposing party in that case, could not constitute a jury demand.
- McCormick moved to confirm a non-jury proceeding post-Duckett; the circuit court, applying Duckett, ruled Lisy’s CIR checkbox did not satisfy Rule 2-325 and proceeded to conduct a bench (non-jury) trial after Lisy’s postponement and a denied mandamus petition to the Court of Appeals.
- After a ten-day non-jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment for McCormick; Lisy appealed, arguing that a properly served CIR should suffice as a jury demand and that Duckett left that question open.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that a CIR is not a permissible vehicle for demanding a jury under Md. Rule 2-325(a), even when served, and that Lisy’s checkbox did not meet the Rule’s strict requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a case information report with the jury box checked and served on opposing parties constitutes a valid jury demand under Md. Rule 2-325(a) | Lisy: A properly served CIR should qualify as a separate "paper" and thus satisfy Rule 2-325's requirement for a written jury demand | McCormick: Rule 2-325 requires a separate paper or a jury demand in a pleading; a CIR is a case-management form, not a paper or pleading, so the checkbox is insufficient | Held: CIR is not a "paper" or "pleading" under Rule 2-325; checking the CIR jury box does not satisfy the rule, so Lisy waived a jury trial |
| Whether federal cases interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 support treating a CIR as a valid demand | Lisy: Federal cases (e.g., Favors) allow cover sheets with checked jury boxes to suffice; persuasive authority supports Lisy’s position | McCormick: Federal rule differs materially from Maryland's Rule 2-325; federal decisions are not controlling or analogous | Held: Federal authority is not persuasive because Md. Rule 2-325 imposes different form requirements |
| Whether McCormick waived its right to object to the defective jury demand | Lisy: McCormick should have objected when served with the CIR or when the clerk scheduled a jury trial | McCormick: It first learned the case was scheduled for jury trial only when the court did so and timely moved to confirm a non-jury proceeding after Duckett | Held: No waiver; McCormick timely objected and pursued relief once the scheduling and Duckett decision made the issue ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (Md. 2012) (CIR is neither a "paper" nor a "pleading" under Rule 2-325 and cannot, when unserved, constitute a jury demand)
- Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690 (Md. 1984) (party actually served with defective jury demand may waive objections by failing to object in the proper court)
- Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (Md. 2004) (rules of construction for Maryland Rules; plain meaning and context guide interpretation)
- In re Kaela, 394 Md. 432 (Md. 2006) (Maryland Rules are "precise rubrics" to be strictly followed)