Abernethy v. EmblemHealth, Inc.

Background

On May 7, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application to make an untimely demand for a jury trial. Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration on May 21, 2020. Defendants opposed the motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply.

The opinion states that Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims had been dismissed while their breach-of-contract claims survived. Plaintiffs had removed the jury demand from their amended complaint filed on February 12, 2018. The Court had previously determined that this was a knowing and intentional waiver of the right to a jury trial.

Reconsideration standard

The Court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It is generally available only when the court overlooked controlling decisions or information that could change its conclusion, when controlling law has changed, when new evidence becomes available, or when reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. It is not a method for repeating rejected arguments, presenting new theories, or seeking a second hearing on the same issues.

Plaintiffs’ arguments

Plaintiffs did not identify a change in controlling law or new evidence. Instead, they argued that the Court’s earlier analysis was wrong. The Court found that most of these arguments repeated points made in the original application and were not a proper basis for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs argued that the Court had overlooked their substantive and constitutional right to a jury trial. The Court responded that it had recognized their right to demand a jury for their state-law claims, but that Plaintiffs knowingly and intentionally waived that right. The Court also explained that federal procedural rules applied to the action because the Court was exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs further argued that removing the jury demand did not waive the right because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a) generally requires a jury trial when one has been demanded unless the parties stipulate to a nonjury trial. The Court rejected that argument, relying on the rule that the right to a jury trial may be waived by the parties’ conduct. It found that Plaintiffs’ decision to remove the demand, which Plaintiffs acknowledged was intended to let the case proceed without a jury, constituted waiver.

The Court also remained unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants would not be prejudiced by allowing an untimely jury demand. The opinion states that the parties had proceeded for many months on the assumption that the case would not be tried to a jury, and the Court credited Defendants’ prejudice argument.

Disposition

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 57. The earlier decision denying Plaintiffs’ request to make an untimely jury demand therefore remained in place.