Sapp v. Industrial Action Services, LLC, 1:19-cv-00912

Plaintiffs Sapp and Hopper sued defendants Industrial Action Services, LLC and RelaDyne, LLC for failing to pay "Earn Out" consideration under a purchase agreement after defendants acquired plaintiffs’ assets.
The case was originally filed in Texas state court, removed to federal court, and then transferred to the District of Delaware.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint multiple times, including adding a tortious interference claim in the Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration, which was initially granted before being reversed by the Third Circuit.
After years of litigation and amendments, plaintiffs demanded a jury trial for the first time after the defendants’ answer to the Third Amended Complaint.
Defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand as untimely; plaintiffs simultaneously moved for a jury trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury demand was timely under Rule 38(b)	The tortious interference claim in the Second Amended Complaint is a new issue justifying a new window for jury demand.	The new claim is a new legal theory, not a new issue; amendments were based on same core facts.	Jury demand untimely; no new issue.
Whether new facts/theories in amended complaints create a new jury-triable issue	New factual allegations and theory create a new general issue of fact for a jury.	New facts/theory clarify but do not change basic issue or area of dispute.	New allegations clarify, do not create new issue.
Whether discretionary jury trial should be granted under Rule 39(b)	Delay was not inadvertence; waited for arbitration/mediation resolution before demanding jury.	Plaintiffs had many opportunities; accounting/complex issues unsuitable for jury.	Discretion not warranted; delay unjustified.
Suitability of claims for jury trial	Jury commonly tries contract and tortious interference cases.	Case complexity and accounting questions make it unsuitable for a jury.	Complex issues better for the court.

Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Revlon, Inc., 111 F.R.D. 24 (D. Del. 1986) (last pleading must raise a new issue for fresh jury demand under Rule 38(b))
Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1977) (amended pleadings involving same core facts do not create a new issue for jury demand)
Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277 (2d Cir. 1973) (adding new facts or legal theories does not by itself create a new jury-triable issue)
Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (presentation of new legal theory alone does not entitle party to jury trial under Rule 38)