Yousefzadeh v. Hill-Rom, Inc.

Background

Mahmoud Yousefzadeh, who was representing himself, brought an employment dispute against Hill-Rom Company, Inc. His claims alleged discrimination and retaliation or reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He sought compensatory damages, among other relief, and demanded a jury trial in his Second Amended Complaint.

Yousefzadeh later moved to withdraw his jury-trial demand. Hill-Rom opposed the motion. The court held a hearing on February 5, 2019.

Jury-Trial Demand

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 preserves the right to a jury trial when the Constitution or a federal statute provides that right. The court explained that Title VII permits a jury trial when a party seeks compensatory or punitive damages. It also explained that Minnesota law provides a jury-trial right for an action seeking relief for an unfair discriminatory practice under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court therefore concluded that Yousefzadeh’s jury demand was proper.

Under Rule 38(d), a proper jury demand may be withdrawn only with the parties’ consent. Because Hill-Rom did not consent, the court denied Yousefzadeh’s Motion to Withdraw Jury Trial Demand and Memorandum of Law in Support. The court also stated that Yousefzadeh had not provided authority showing that a disagreement with his former attorney allowed him to withdraw the demand unilaterally.

Request for Attorney Fees

Hill-Rom separately requested reimbursement of the attorney fees it incurred opposing the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. That statute can require a person admitted to conduct cases in federal court to pay excess costs, expenses, and attorney fees caused by unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings. The court noted that courts disagree about whether the statute applies to people representing themselves.

The court did not decide that broader issue. Instead, it held that, at that point in the case, it was not clear that Yousefzadeh had acted vexatiously by bringing the motion. The court denied Hill-Rom’s request for fees. It noted that other potential remedies could be available if improper conduct became apparent in the future, including remedies under Rule 11, the court’s orders, and the court’s inherent authority.

Order

Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Yousefzadeh’s motion to withdraw the jury demand was DENIED and that Hill-Rom’s request for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was DENIED. The court further ordered that all prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect. The order warned that failure to comply with this or prior consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions.