Byron Green v. Washoe County School District, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, and Does 1-10, inclusive.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00442
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 BYRON GREEN, Case No. 3:21-CV-00442-ART-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 8 v. FOR JURY TRIAL (ECF No. 74) 9 WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of 10 the State of Nevada, and DOES 1-10, inclusive. 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Jury Trial. (ECF No. 74.) 15 Defendant asks the Court for a jury trial on all pending claims pursuant to 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). Plaintiff responded in opposition to the 17 motion. (ECF No. 75.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies 18 Defendant’s Motion for Jury Trial. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Green filed his initial complaint in this action on November 15, 21 2019, in the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1-2, Ex. B- 22 1 at 3.) In the Joint Case Conference Report on July 2, 2020, represented by 23 previous counsel, Mr. Green posits that a jury demand was filed. (ECF No. 1-2, 24 Ex. B-20 at 289.) The subsequent scheduling order noted that while a jury trial 25 was initially scheduled, counsel for both parties agreed to a non-jury trial on 26 September 24, 2020. (ECF No. 1-2, Ex. B-33 at 677.) Plaintiff filed his First 27 Amended Complaint on September 23, 2021. (ECF No. 1-2, Ex. A at 2.) 28 On October 7, 2021, Defendant removed this action to federal court. (ECF 1 No. 1.) It did not file and serve a jury demand with its notice of removal. (Id.) 2 Defendant also did not make a jury demand in its Answer to Plaintiff’s First 3 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) On July 23, 2025, Defendant filed its Motion 4 for Jury Trial. (ECF No. 74.) 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”) 38(b) states that a party may 7 demand a jury trial by “(1) serving the other parties with a written demand – 8 which may be included in a pleading – at any time after the commencement of 9 the action and not later than the time of entry of the order first setting the case 10 for trial; (2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d); and (3) unless the 11 local rules provide otherwise, depositing with the court clerk an amount of money 12 equal to the fees to be paid the trial jurors for their services for the first day of 13 trial.” 14 A party wishing to exercise its right to a jury trial in federal court must 15 make a demand “not later than fourteen days after the service of the last pleading 16 directed to such issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Failure to make a timely jury trial 17 request in federal court would generally waive the right to a trial by jury. Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 38(d). Rule 81(c) provides two other avenues in a removal case like the one 19 we have here: First, if a party made a proper jury request under state law before 20 the case was removed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). Second, if the state complaint already 21 contained a jury demand that satisfied Rule 38(b). See Lutz v. Glendale Union 22 High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1063-4 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 39(b) provides that a court may, 24 “on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been 25 demanded.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). The Ninth Circuit defines this discretion 26 narrowly, and “does not permit a court to grant relief when the failure to make a 27 timely demand results from oversight or inadvertence,” nor for a “good faith 28 mistake of law.” Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 556-557 (9th Cir. 1983); Pacific 1 Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & General Ins., Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2 2001). 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 Defendant argues that because the parties made various references to the 5 existence of a jury demand while the case was pending in state court, it is 6 therefore implied that it would not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff counters that the 7 lack of a proper jury demand was a result of inadvertence and oversight of both 8 parties, and therefore Defendant is precluded from arguing balancing factors. The 9 Court finds that the failure to properly file a jury demand in state and federal 10 court within the required deadlines was a result of inadvertence or oversight, and 11 the motion for a jury trial should be denied. 12 a. Neither Party Properly Filed a Demand for a Jury Trial in 13 State Court as a Result of Inadvertence or Oversight. 14 Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant in this case properly demanded a 15 jury trial under NRCP 38(b): neither made or served a jury demand nor deposited 16 juror fees in state court. Nev. R. Civ. P. 38(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Neither party 17 made a jury demand at the time of or within fourteen days of removal. Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 81(c). Defendant’s description of the various references to a jury trial 19 throughout state and federal proceedings is unavailing; the facts essentially 20 amount to a good faith mistake. See Brooks v. Hubbell, No. 2:23-cv-00757, 2024 21 WL 4804885 (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2024) (mistaken belief that jury trial would be 22 automatically assigned was insufficient to show more than mere inadvertence). 23 While Defendant acknowledges the Court’s narrow discretion to grant relief 24 to a party who failed to make a jury demand as a result of oversight or 25 inadvertence, it relies entirely on the argument that a jury trial will not prejudice 26 the Plaintiff, delay proceedings, or have a negative effect on the Court’s calendar. 27 See Ruiz v. Rodriguez, 206 F.R.D. 501, 504-5 (E.D. Cal 2002). In Ruiz, the Court 28 found that the failure to comply with Rule 38(b) was due to a process server’s 1 || error, not a result of oversight or inadvertence by plaintiff or her counsel, so the 2 || court could exercise its discretion to grant plaintiffs untimely jury demand. Id. 3 || at 505. Here, the failure to timely demand a jury trial was clearly due to counsel’s 4 || oversight or inadvertence. Because Ninth Circuit law “does not permit” the Court 5 || to grant Defendant’s motion, the Court denies the motion and need not address 6 || the factors of prejudice or disruption to the administration of justice. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s Motion for Jury Trial (ECF No. 74) 9 || is DENIED. 10 It is further ordered that the parties must refile their Proposed Joint Pretrial 11 || Order (ECF No. 70) to reflect that the case is proceeding under a bench trial by 12 || October 29, 2025. 13 14 Dated this 224 day of October, 2025. 15 16 Ans floret qn 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28