Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-06033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Judge Wang granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ late jury demand because the amended complaint raised no new issues.
The ruling affected Defendants MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat by striking their jury demand, and it granted Plaintiffs Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos the requested relief on that motion.
What happened
In Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc., former delivery employees Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos sued MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat under federal and New York wage laws. The defendants did not request a jury trial in their answer to Lopez’s original complaint, but they requested one after the amended complaint added Campos and three wage-related claims.
The court ruled that the defendants had missed the deadline for requesting a jury trial. It found that adding Campos and the three claims did not change the basic issues in the case, which concern whether the defendants properly paid wages and provided required notices.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendants’ jury demand. Judge Ona T. Wang issued and signed the Opinion & Order.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06033
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos, former delivery employees of MNAF Pizzeria, Inc., sued MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat. Their claims alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including failures to pay minimum wage and overtime, unlawful tip retention and deductions, and failures to provide required wage notices and wage statements.
Defendants answered Lopez’s original complaint without requesting a jury trial. After the court allowed Lopez to amend the complaint to add Campos and additional claims, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants then filed an answer that included a jury demand. Plaintiffs moved to strike that demand.
Rule for Jury Demands
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 generally requires a party to serve and file a jury demand no later than 14 days after the last pleading addressing the issue. A party that fails to make a timely demand waives the right to a jury trial on the issues in the complaint. An amended pleading can revive the right only when it changes the issues in the case. The court explained that a new issue must involve more than new evidence or a different legal theory; it must change the character of the suit or require a factual determination outside the matters already presented.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Defendants’ jury demand in response to the amended complaint was untimely because they had not demanded a jury trial in response to the original complaint. It rejected the argument that adding Campos automatically created new issues. The addition of a new party, by itself, did not revive a previously waived jury-trial right.
The court also found that the three added claims—unlawful tip retention, unlawful deductions, and failure to pay wages—did not change the character of the lawsuit or its ultimate issues. The case remained a wage dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning whether Defendants properly paid Plaintiffs and provided adequate notices.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ jury demand. The Clerk was directed to close ECF 37. The order addressed the jury-demand issue and did not decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ wage claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.