Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.

Background

Lawrence Haley filed his complaint in San Francisco Superior Court on October 24, 2018. The complaint did not request a jury trial. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc. answered and removed the case to federal court on December 14, 2018.

The parties later filed a joint case-management statement in which Haley requested a jury trial for the first time. The defendant objected, arguing that the request was not timely. The court subsequently issued a scheduling order setting a jury trial for March 23, 2020. The defendant moved to modify that order so the trial would be a bench trial instead. Haley did not timely file an opposition; after the court ordered him to explain why the motion should not be granted, he filed an opposition citing his attorney’s illness.

Legal standard

The court treated the motion to modify the scheduling order as, in substance, a motion to strike Haley’s jury demand. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 generally requires a party to make a written jury demand no later than 14 days after the last pleading addressing the issue is served. Rule 81(c)(3) provides a timing rule for jury demands in removed cases. A party who does not timely demand a jury trial waives that right under Rule 38(d).

Under Rule 39(b), a court may sometimes order a jury trial even after an untimely demand. But the Ninth Circuit has held that this discretion is narrow and does not allow relief when the late demand resulted from oversight or inadvertence alone.

Court’s analysis

Haley did not dispute that he failed to demand a jury trial while the case was in state court or within 14 days after the defendant answered and removed the case. He argued instead that his request in the joint case-management statement was timely because it was his first opportunity to tell the court that he wanted a jury trial.

The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the request, made three months after removal and the defendant’s answer, was not timely under either Rule 38 or Rule 81. The court also found that Haley had not identified a reason beyond inadvertence or oversight that would justify allowing the late demand. The court therefore concluded that it could not grant the untimely jury request.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order. The court reset the case for a three-day bench trial set for March 23, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.