Summary
holding that a civil cover sheet timely served and containing a written jury demand clearly satisfies Rule 38(b)
Summary of this case from Marcucilli v. Am. Airlines, Inc.Opinion
Plaintiffs moved for trial by jury. The District Court, David F. Jordan, United States Magistrate, held that notation of jury demand on civil cover sheet, which was served simultaneously with summons and complaint, satisfied procedural rule requiring that demand be in writing and be timely served.
Motion granted.
Daniel P. Buttafuoco, Mineola, N.Y. for plaintiffs.
Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile & Devine, Merrick, N.Y., for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID F. JORDAN, United States Magistrate.
Motion by plaintiffs for trial by jury. Rule 38(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. There is no opposition.
Motion granted. This case is to be tried before a jury.
Plaintiffs' jury demand appears only on the civil cover sheet, which was served on the defendant simultaneously with the summons and complaint. Notation of a jury demand on the civil cover sheet does not, in itself, constitute compliance with Rule 38(b). Omawale v. WBZ, 610 F.2d 20 (1 Cir.1980). This is because there is no requirement that the civil cover sheet be served on opposing parties. The Fifth Circuit has expressly declined to decide whether a jury demand contained on a civil cover sheet, which is then timely served on opposing parties, is a sufficient demand. Pinemont Bank v. Belk, 722 F.2d 232, 235 (5 Cir.1984).
Rule 38(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires only that the demand be in writing and that it be timely served. A civil cover sheet which contains a written jury demand, and which is timely served, clearly satisfies this Rule.
SO ORDERED.