The Barter House, Inc. v. Infinity Spirits LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-09276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Barter House v. Infinity Spirits LCC, Judge Engelmayer gave Brian Hopkins until November 6 to preserve his jury-trial right.
Brian Hopkins was given a deadline to preserve his jury-trial right. The Barter House, Inc. and Brian DiMarco were directed to serve him with the order and file proof of service. The order also affected how the unresolved claims would be scheduled for trial.
What happened
The Barter House, Inc. and Brian DiMarco agreed to a remote bench trial because of the public health crisis, timing, convenience, and health concerns involving witnesses, including Brian Hopkins. Hopkins, who was representing himself, did not attend the October 27, 2020 pretrial conference despite notice.
The court instructed Hopkins to file a letter by November 6, 2020 if he wanted the unresolved claims decided by a jury. If he did so, the court said it would respect that request. If he did not, the court would consider his jury-trial right waived and schedule a remote bench trial. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also directed The Barter House to serve Hopkins with the order at all known addresses, including email addresses, and then file an affidavit confirming service.
The detailed version
- The Barter House, Inc. v. Infinity Spirits LLC · No. 1:17-cv-09276
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
The court received a letter from plaintiffs The Barter House, Inc. and Brian DiMarco, together referred to in the order as “Barter House,” consenting to a bench trial during the public health crisis. The plaintiffs gave reasons supporting a remote bench trial, including faster resolution of the long-pending claims, reduced inconvenience, and reduced health risks for out-of-state and international witnesses. The order identifies Brian Hopkins, the remaining defendant, as a resident of Canada. Hopkins was representing himself and had been served with the plaintiffs’ letter.
At the beginning of the case, Hopkins and his then-co-defendants had requested a jury trial on all claims. Despite notice, Hopkins did not attend the October 27, 2020 pretrial conference, where the possibility of a bench trial was discussed. The court asked the parties to reconsider whether they would consent to having all factual issues requiring decision resolved through a remote bench trial. The plaintiffs consented.
Order
The court instructed Hopkins to file a letter by November 6, 2020 if he wished to assert his right to have the unresolved claims decided by a jury. The court stated that it would respect a timely jury demand. If Hopkins did not file an objection by that date, the court would consider his jury-trial right waived and would proceed with scheduling a remote bench trial.
The order also directed The Barter House to promptly serve a copy of the order on Hopkins at all known addresses, including email addresses, and then file an affidavit confirming service. The court did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims. The opinion refers to scheduling a trial during the first quarter of 2020, although the order is dated October 28, 2020; the text does not explain that apparent timing inconsistency.
Effect
The order set a deadline and warning concerning Hopkins’s jury-trial right; it did not itself state that the right had already been waived. It also established the next service and filing requirements for The Barter House. The order was signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.