Li v. Merck & Co., Inc.

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 NINA XIAOYAN LI, Case No. 23-cv-03347-JSW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 11 v. RELIEF FROM UNTIMELY JURY DEMAND 12 MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 11 Defendants. [14] 15 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Nina (Xiaoyan) Li’s motion for relief from her untimely 16 jury demand pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 39(b) and 6(b). Plaintiff’s counsel 17 seeks the Court’s discretionary determination whether to grant relief to allow her untimely jury 18 demand. Plaintiff’s counsel were inaccessible during the window of time for filing of a jury 19 demand after Defendant removed this case to federal court. The case was removed, thereby 20 setting a deadline of July 19, 2023, to file a demand for a jury trial, within 14 days of removal to 21 federal court. At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel were out of the country and inaccessible. 22 The Ninth Circuit has held that the discretion given to a judge under Rule 39(b) is 23 “‘narrow’ and ‘does not permit a court to grant relief when the failure to make a timely demand 24 results from an oversight or inadvertence.’” Ruiz v. Rodriguez, 206 F.R.D. 501, 504 (E.D. Cal. 25 2002) (quoting Pacific Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & General Ins., Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000 , 1002 26 (9th Cir. 2001)). Other circuit courts have interpreted Rule 39(b) to require a court to grant a 27 motion for a jury trial “in the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary.” Id. 1 Here in the present case, the Court finds that counsel’s absence from the jurisdiction and 2 || their prompt remedying of the filing a demand for a jury trial resulted not from inadvertence or 3 oversight, but rather from the unique circumstances of Defendant’s removal and counsel’s known 4 || absence. The Court finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced and the demand for a jury will not 5 delay the trial or otherwise disrupt proceedings and further that granting the request will not have a 6 || negative effect on the Court’s calendar or the administration of justice. See Ruiz, 206 F.R.D. at 7 505. Here, Plaintiff's counsel filed the demand for a jury trial only eight days after it was due and 8 only two days after learning of the removal of the action to federal court. Under these unique 9 || circumstances, the Court exercises its discretion to permit the late-filed demand for a jury trial and 10 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for relief. [11] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. a | 13 Dated: September 18, 2023 □ i f Nite Lf ARS ABFFREY S. WHITE 5 f Pnitey/ Stayes Dystrict Judge = 17 Z 18