Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-08438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc., Judge Cave denied a court-appointed expert but granted permission to add a late jury demand.
James Gencarelli may have his complaint amended to include a jury demand, but he was denied a court-appointed expert witness. Toto USA Inc. must face the case with the jury demand reflected on the docket, and the order states that Toto did not oppose the amendment.
What happened
James Gencarelli, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Toto USA Inc. over injuries he allegedly suffered because of a defect in a toilet’s flushing apparatus. He asked the court to appoint an expert witness and to let him add a jury-trial request to his complaint.
The court denied the request for an appointed expert because Rule 706 allows a neutral expert, not an expert hired for one party’s benefit. The court granted Gencarelli’s request to amend his complaint because his failure to request a jury was excusable neglect, Toto did not object, and the court found no reason to believe Toto would be prejudiced.
Sarah L. Cave, the United States magistrate judge, directed the Clerk of Court to update the docket to show that Gencarelli demands a jury trial and to close the two motions. The order did not decide whether Gencarelli will win his negligence claim.
The detailed version
- Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08438
- Analisa Torres
- July 2, 2024
Background
James Gencarelli, a pro se plaintiff, brought a negligence action against Toto USA Inc., described in the opinion as a Japanese toilet manufacturer. He seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained from a defect in the flushing apparatus of a toilet installed by Toto. The court considered two motions: Gencarelli’s request under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 for the appointment of an expert witness, and his request to amend his complaint to add a jury demand. Toto did not oppose either motion or otherwise respond, despite being directed to respond to the motion to amend.
Expert-Witness Motion
The court denied the motion for an appointed expert. Rule 706 permits a court to appoint a neutral expert, but the court explained that it does not provide an expert solely for a party’s benefit. Gencarelli argued that, because he was representing himself, he faced difficulties presenting technical and specialized evidence. The court found that this was not a neutral purpose and that he had not established a basis for appointing an expert under Rule 706.
Motion to Amend
The court granted the motion to amend the complaint to add a jury demand. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a party generally must demand a jury within 14 days after service of the last pleading directed to the issue. The court explained that a late demand may still be allowed under Rule 6(b) when the failure resulted from excusable neglect. Although the court found that Gencarelli’s failure was mere inadvertence and therefore did not warrant relief under Rule 39(b), it found that the circumstances—including his explanation that the omission resulted from oversight and misunderstanding connected to his pro se status—constituted excusable neglect under Rule 6(b). Toto had not argued that the delay would prejudice it, and the case remained in discovery.
Disposition
The Expert Witness Motion was DENIED. The Motion to Amend was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to amend the docket to reflect Gencarelli’s jury demand and to close the two motions. The order did not resolve the merits of the negligence action.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.