United States District Court, D. Maine
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING ORDER AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
STRIKE JURY DEMAND
H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge.
Leyla Hashi objects to the court's scheduling order (ECF
No. 6) on the basis that it fails to reflect her demand for a
jury trial on all claims, see Plaintiff's
Limited Objection to Scheduling Order (“Plaintiff's
Objection”) (ECF No. 7); defendants SEI/Aaron's,
Inc., and Aaron's, Inc., in turn move to strike her jury
demand because she did not timely request a trial by jury
following the defendants' removal of her case from state
court, see [Defendants'] Motion To Strike Jury
Demand (“Defendants' Motion”) (ECF No. 9).
Because I conclude that, while the plaintiff's jury
demand was untimely, in the circumstances her forfeiture of
her right to a jury trial should be excused, I sustain the
plaintiff's objection to the scheduling order and deny
the defendants' motion to strike her jury demand.
plaintiff filed the instant employment discrimination
complaint in the Maine Superior Court, Cumberland County, on
March 9, 2017. See Affidavit of Katharine I. Rand
(ECF No. 2) ¶ 2; Complaint (ECF No. 2-1), attached
thereto. On April 20, 2017, the defendants simultaneously
removed the case to this court and filed an answer to the
complaint. See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1);
Defendants' Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 4). On May 8,
2017, this court issued its customary “Standard
Track” scheduling order. See ECF No. 6. On May
18, 2017, in the context of objecting to the scheduling
order, the plaintiff demanded a jury trial on all issues.
See Plaintiff's Objection.
Whether Jury Demand Was Timely
Rule of Civil Procedure 81 provides, in relevant part:
Demand for a Jury Trial.
(A) As Affected by State Law. A party who, before
removal, expressly demanded a jury trial in accordance with
state law need not renew the demand after removal. If the
state law did not require an express demand for a jury trial,
a party need not make one after removal unless the court
orders the parties to do so within a specified time. The
court must so order at a party's request and may so order
on its own. A party who fails to make a demand when so
ordered waives a jury trial.
(B) Under Rule 38. If all necessary pleadings have
been served at the time of removal, a party entitled to a
jury trial under Rule 38 must be given one if the party
serves a demand within 14 days after:
(i) it files a notice of removal; or
(ii) it is served with a notice of removal filed by another
Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3).
Rule of Civil Procedure 38 ...