Zero Down Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Global Transportation Solutions, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 604

Default entered against Shaw Defendants for failure to comply with discovery and participate meaningfully (Feb. 5, 2010).
Court reserved judgment on damages until after adjudication of other defendants; settlement imminent led to hearing for damages (Mar. 27, 2012).
Court directed briefing on whether damages should be resolved by judge or jury.
Court held the Shaw Defendants have a federal statutory right to a jury trial for damages.
Rule 55(b) preserves a jury trial right for damages; but default alone does not negate this right.
Court concludes Shaw Defendants are entitled to a jury on damages after considering Rule 38(d) and fairness considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shaw Defendants have a right to a jury trial on damages after default	Plaintiffs contend no jury right exists after default.	Shaw Defendants argue they retain a jury right for damages under Rule 38(d) and fairness.	Shaw Defendants entitled to a jury for damages.
Does Rule 38(d) permit unilateral withdrawal of a jury demand when others object	Plaintiffs maintain withdrawal requires consent and is improper if objected to.	Rule 38(d) allows withdrawal only with consent; non-consent preserves the jury demand.	Both parties must consent to withdraw a properly made jury demand.
Relationship between Rule 55(b) and jury rights post-default	Rule 55(b) preserves jury rights where applicable.	Default cases may not guarantee a jury trial; need to examine Rule 38 interplay.	Rule 38(d) controls withdrawal and fairness; jury right preserved where proper demand exists.
Cited authorities supporting jury for damages in default context	Authorities suggest limitations on jury rights after default.	Authorities support protecting a jury trial right when properly demanded and not waived.	Fairness and Rule 38(d) require upholding the jury demand.
What is the persuasive authority on Rule 38 in default damages hearings	New Mexico decisions support jury rights when demanded and not waived.	Other circuits’ decisions are not controlling and emphasize similar fairness principles.	Persuasive authorities favor preserving jury right in damages proceedings.

Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 327 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir. 2003) (no constitutional right to jury trial after default; Rule 55 not absolute)
Graham v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc., 314 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1999) (neither Seventh Amendment nor FRCP require jury trial after default in these circumstances)
Dierschke v. O’Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (no automatic jury right for damages after default)
Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1974) (Seventh Amendment right does not survive a default judgment)
In re Rains, 946 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1991) (addressed default but not Rule 38 issue; context cited regarding jury rights)
Barber v. Turberville, 218 F.2d 34 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (recognizes consideration of jury for damages in certain contexts)
Hutton v. Fisher, 359 F.2d 913 (3d Cir. 1966) (noted fairness in applying notice/consent to jury trial in damages)