Li v. Merck & Co., Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 3:23-cv-03347
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Li v. Merck, Judge White granted Li relief from her untimely jury demand after counsel missed the deadline during removal.
The ruling allows Nina Xiaoyan Li to have her late jury demand considered in the case against Merck & Co., Inc., et al.
What happened
In Li v. Merck & Co., Inc., Nina Xiaoyan Li asked the court to accept her late request for a jury trial.
The case was removed to federal court, creating a July 19, 2023 deadline for the jury demand. Li’s lawyers were out of the country and inaccessible, and they filed the demand eight days late, two days after learning about the removal.
The court found that these circumstances were not mere oversight, that Merck would not be harmed, and that the request would not delay or disrupt the case. Judge Jeffrey S. White granted Li’s motion for relief.
The detailed version
- Li v. Merck & Co., Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-03347
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
Nina Xiaoyan Li moved for relief from her untimely demand for a jury trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 39(b) and 6(b). After Merck removed the case to federal court, the deadline for demanding a jury trial was July 19, 2023—14 days after removal. Li’s counsel were out of the country and inaccessible during that period.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a judge’s discretion under Rule 39(b) is narrow and generally does not allow relief when a late demand results from oversight or inadvertence. Here, however, the court found that counsel’s absence and the circumstances surrounding the removal were unusual rather than mere inadvertence. Counsel filed the jury demand eight days after the deadline and two days after learning that the case had been removed.
The court also found that Merck would not be prejudiced, the jury demand would not delay the trial or disrupt the proceedings, and granting relief would not negatively affect the court’s calendar or the administration of justice.
Disposition
The court exercised its discretion to permit the late-filed jury demand and granted Li’s motion for relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.