Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-01278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Floyd v. Saber Fitness, Judge Hixson ruled Floyd’s jury demand remains effective unless both parties stipulate to a nonjury trial.
Michael Devin Floyd and Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC; the ruling determines whether their case will proceed as a jury trial or a nonjury trial.
What happened
Michael Devin Floyd, representing himself, sued Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, alleging civil-rights violations and contract claims after Saber allegedly terminated his gym membership. Floyd requested a jury trial in his original and second amended complaints.
The court found that Floyd’s jury demand had not been withdrawn because nothing showed that both parties consented to a nonjury trial. The court noted that Saber had filed a statement saying Floyd did not request a jury, but Floyd’s pleadings and later filings referred to a jury.
Judge Hixson ordered that the parties must file a stipulation consenting to a nonjury trial by November 20, 2025, if they want to waive a jury. Otherwise, the court will reschedule the trial as a jury trial.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger · No. 3:24-cv-01278
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
Michael Devin Floyd, proceeding without a lawyer, brought civil-rights and contract claims against Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, alleging that Saber improperly terminated his gym membership. The case had been set for a bench trial, meaning a trial decided by the judge, on January 12, 2026.
Floyd’s original complaint, filed in state court, stated “Demand For Jury Trial” on its cover. His Second Amended Complaint also stated “Demand For Jury Trial.” A joint statement filed by Saber on December 4, 2024, said that Floyd did not request a jury trial. Floyd’s pretrial filings also referred to a jury.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 allows a party to demand a jury trial by serving and filing a written demand within the required period. The court explained that requesting a jury trial in a complaint is an unequivocal demand. Once properly made, the demand cannot be withdrawn without the parties’ consent under Rule 38. Rule 39 provides that the parties may consent to a nonjury trial by filing a stipulation or stating the agreement on the record; alternatively, the court may determine that no federal right to a jury trial exists on some or all issues.
The court found that it was not clear that Floyd had retracted his jury request. More importantly, nothing indicated that both parties had consented to withdraw it. The court therefore found that Floyd’s jury-trial demand had not been withdrawn.
Order
The court ordered that, if the parties wish to waive a jury trial, they must file a stipulation consenting to a nonjury trial by November 20, 2025. If they do not stipulate to withdraw the jury demand, the court will reschedule the trial as a jury trial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.