Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-02515
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gao v. Savour Sichuan, Judge Cronan asked parties to consider magistrate-judge consent and explain any request for a jury trial.
The parties and counsel in XiaoChun Gao’s case, concerning whether to consent to proceedings before Magistrate Judge Parker and whether to seek a jury trial.
What happened
In Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc., the court ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. If they consented, the plaintiff’s counsel had to file the required form by February 16, 2023; otherwise, the parties had to file a joint letter saying they did not consent without identifying who withheld consent.
The court also asked the parties to state whether they preferred a bench trial or a jury trial if they did not consent. The court said the pleadings and docket showed no timely jury demand, so the parties appeared to have given up that right. It nevertheless explained that a judge could allow a late jury demand if the parties showed a reason beyond simple oversight.
Judge John P. Cronan issued this case-management order. The order did not decide the underlying claims or resolve any motion on the merits.
The detailed version
- Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02515
- John Cronan
- Feb. 10, 2023
Nature of the Order
This was a case-management order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying claims. Judge Cronan directed the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
Consent to Magistrate Judge Proceedings
The order stated that, if all parties consented, counsel for XiaoChun Gao had to file a fully executed consent and reference form by February 16, 2023. If the court approved the form, Judge Parker would conduct all further proceedings instead of Judge Cronan. Any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
If any party did not consent, the parties had to file a joint letter by February 16, 2023, stating that they did not consent without identifying the party or parties who withheld consent.
Bench Trial or Jury Trial
The court directed the parties, if they did not consent to proceed before Judge Parker, to provide their views on whether the case should be tried to the judge or to a jury. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1) generally requires a party to demand a jury trial no later than 14 days after the last pleading addressing the issue is served, and that failing to make a timely demand waives the right.
The court observed that none of the pleadings asserted a jury demand and that the docket did not show separately filed jury demands within the required period. Accordingly, the court said it appeared that the parties had waived a jury trial. The court also noted that, under Rule 39(b), it could order a jury trial on motion, but that a party would need to show a reason beyond mere inadvertence for the court to grant an untimely request. Any status letter seeking a jury trial therefore had to address whether such reasons existed.
Disposition and Classification
The court entered directions about judicial consent and trial procedure. It did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss claims, or decide the merits of the dispute. This is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.