Lisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co.
126 A.3d 55
Md.2015Background
- Lisy Corp. sued McCormick, Mojave Foods, and a former employee alleging contract and tort claims; Lisy filed its complaint with a completed Case Information Report (CIR) that had the CIR "Jury Demand" box checked "Yes."
- Lisy did not file any separate pleading or paper expressly asserting a jury demand under Md. Rule 2-325(a).
- The court’s Office of Calendar Management scheduled a jury trial; defendants objected and moved to confirm a bench trial, arguing the CIR alone does not satisfy Rule 2-325(a).
- The motions judge relied on Duckett v. Riley and held that a CIR—served or unserved—does not qualify as the required "pleading" or separate "paper," so Lisy waived its jury right; the case proceeded to a bench trial and judgment for defendants.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court of Appeals (this opinion) granted certiorari and affirmed, holding a CIR is not a "paper" under Rule 2-325(a) and failure to comply with the Rule ordinarily waives the civil jury right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a completed CIR that was served on opposing parties constitutes a "paper" under Md. Rule 2-325(a) for demanding a jury trial | The served CIR’s checked jury box provided the notice Rule 2-325 aims to secure and thus should qualify as a separate "paper." | A CIR is a court case-management form distinct from pleadings/papers; it cannot substitute for the Rule’s required pleading or separate paper. | A CIR, served or unserved, is not a separate "paper" under Rule 2-325(a). |
| Whether failing to assert the jury demand in a pleading or separate paper waives the right to a civil jury trial | Lisy argued Duckett was limited to unserved CIRs and that service here preserved its jury demand; also argued lack of intentional relinquishment. | Defendants argued strict compliance is required and noncompliance constitutes waiver per Rule 2-325(b). | Failure to comply with Rule 2-325(a) results in waiver of the right to a jury trial. |
| Whether Maryland Rule 2-325 should be interpreted analogously to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) (more flexible) | Lisy urged federal cases permitting a served civil-cover-sheet jury box to suffice should inform Maryland practice. | Defendants relied on Maryland’s narrower, mandatory rule language and state precedent requiring strict compliance. | Court held Rule 2-325 is narrower than the federal rule; federal authorities are not controlling and Maryland requires a pleading or separate paper. |
| Whether Duckett precluded treating a served CIR as a valid jury demand | Lisy contended Duckett left open the served-CIR question; treatment should differ. | Court and defendants read Duckett as consistent with holding CIRs are not "papers," served or not. | Court reaffirmed Duckett’s reasoning and held service does not convert a CIR into a qualifying "paper." |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (Md. 2012) (CIR is not ordinarily a "paper" for Rule 2-325 and unserved CIR cannot satisfy jury-demand requirements)
- Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (Md. 2004) (principles for interpreting Maryland Rules; look to plain meaning, context, legislative history)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Seay, 388 Md. 341 (Md. 2005) (Maryland Rules are "precise rubrics" to be strictly followed)
- Lisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co., 219 Md. App. 592 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (intermediate appellate affirmation that Lisy did not properly elect a jury trial)
- Favors v. Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1989) (federal precedent holding a timely served civil cover sheet with the jury box checked can constitute a proper jury demand under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38)