Webber v. Dash
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-00610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Webber v. Dash, Judge Lehrburger denied plaintiffs’ request to waive a jury and denied, without prejudice, their request to bar defendants from disputing a defamation issue.
The plaintiffs’ requested change from a jury trial to a bench trial was rejected, so the case would proceed before a jury unless the defendants consented otherwise. The defendants remained able to defend the defamation claims, although the plaintiffs could renew their collateral-estoppel request through a pretrial motion.
What happened
In Webber v. Dash, the plaintiffs asked to withdraw their jury demand and have a bench trial instead. They also asked the court to prevent the defendants from defending against part of the plaintiffs’ defamation claims based on a ruling in another case involving the same statement.
The court denied the request to waive the jury because the defendants objected and had not consented to withdrawing the jury demand. The court also denied the estoppel request without prejudice because the parties had not sufficiently addressed whether the legal requirements were met. The plaintiffs could raise that issue again through a pretrial motion if they had a good-faith basis.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered that the trial would remain a jury trial unless the defendants later consented to a bench trial. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ defamation claims or determine whether the defendants were liable.
The detailed version
- Webber v. Dash · No. 1:19-cv-00610
- Robert Lehrburger
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs asserted defamation claims against Damon Anthony Dash and other defendants. They made two requests before trial. First, they asked to withdraw their jury demand and proceed with a bench trial, meaning a trial decided by the judge. Second, they argued that the defendants should be barred from defending against the defamation claims concerning a statement that the plaintiffs had supposedly robbed a child.
The plaintiffs based the second request on a recent decision in another case involving the same statement. In that case, the Central District of California granted Brown summary judgment on the statement, as it applied to Brown, along with several other statements.
Jury Trial Request
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to waive the jury. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d), a jury demand may be withdrawn only with the other parties’ consent unless an exception applies. The defendants objected to the request, and the court found that no applicable exception applied. The court therefore stated that, unless the defendants consented, the trial would be by jury.
Estoppel Request
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for collateral estoppel without prejudice. Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that can prevent a party from relitigating an issue already decided in an earlier case. The court found that the parties had not sufficiently briefed whether, and to what extent, the requirements for applying that doctrine were met.
The court identified unresolved questions, including that the California court determined Brown was not a public figure but did not address whether the plaintiffs in this case were public figures. It was also unclear whether the California court found the statement false in its entirety or only false as to Brown. The court said the plaintiffs could renew the issue, if they had a good-faith basis, through a motion in limine filed under the pretrial schedule.
Disposition and Classification
The jury-waiver application was denied. The collateral-estoppel motion was denied without prejudice. The order did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ defamation claims. Because the court ruled on trial procedure and a pretrial estoppel issue without deciding the underlying defamation claims, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.