Pfeister v. RSUI Indemnity Company
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-03387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pfeister v. RSUI Indemnity Company, Judge Beeler struck the untimely jury demand and denied motions to bifurcate trial and obtain relief from an earlier order.
Joanna L. Pfeister may not try the case before a jury based on the demand the court struck, and her requests to separate liability from damages and obtain relief under Rule 72 were denied. RSUI Indemnity Company obtained the order striking the jury demand.
What happened
In Pfeister v. RSUI Indemnity Company, Joanna L. Pfeister, representing herself, sued RSUI Indemnity Company, which insures her condominium association, over its alleged failure to defend her in a state criminal lawsuit.
The court granted RSUI’s motion to strike Pfeister’s jury demand because she made it 52 days after receiving the notice of removal, rather than within the required period. The court also denied Pfeister’s request to separate liability and damages for trial and her request for relief from the earlier order denying her request for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Beeler ruled that any trial would be before the judge, so separating liability and damages was unnecessary. She also ruled that the earlier order was dispositive because the parties had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, so the procedure Pfeister used did not apply.
The detailed version
- Pfeister v. RSUI Indemnity Company · No. 3:20-cv-03387
- Laurel Beeler
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
Joanna L. Pfeister, who represented herself, sued RSUI Indemnity Company. The opinion says RSUI insures Pfeister’s condominium association and that the lawsuit concerns RSUI’s alleged failure to defend her in a state criminal lawsuit. The court addressed three pending motions: RSUI’s motion to strike Pfeister’s jury demand, Pfeister’s motion to separate liability and damages at trial, and Pfeister’s motion for relief from the court’s earlier order denying her request for a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand
The court held that Pfeister’s jury demand was untimely. Neither party had demanded a jury trial in state court before removal. RSUI served Pfeister with the notice of removal on May 19, 2020, and Pfeister made her jury demand on July 10, 2020—52 days later. The court concluded that the demand was not timely even after accounting for additional time allowed for service by mail. It also found no reason for the delay beyond oversight or inadvertence and rejected Pfeister’s argument that the time her preliminary-injunction motion was pending should be excluded.
The court granted RSUI’s motion to strike the jury demand.
Motion to Bifurcate
“Bifurcation” means dividing a trial into separate parts, here liability and damages. The court denied Pfeister’s motion to bifurcate because any trial would be a bench trial rather than a jury trial. The court therefore found that there was no risk of jury confusion and that bifurcation was unnecessary.
Relief From Earlier Order
The court previously denied Pfeister’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring RSUI to defend her in the state lawsuit. Pfeister sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), treating that earlier decision as a nondispositive order. The court ruled that, because the parties had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, the earlier order was dispositive and Rule 72(b) did not apply. The court stated that Pfeister would need to appeal that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court denied Pfeister’s motion for relief under Rule 72.
Disposition
The court granted RSUI’s motion to strike Pfeister’s jury demand and denied Pfeister’s motions to bifurcate and for relief under Rule 72. The opinion addresses pretrial and review procedures and does not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.