Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Carmen Corrales-Gonzalez, ) No. CV-20-02023-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 On June 6, 2022, the parties appeared before the Court for the Final Pretrial 16 Conference in this matter. (Doc. 69). The parties indicated that they dispute whether the 17 trial in this matter will be a jury or bench trial. In their Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, the 18 parties indicate the following: 19 The parties stipulate that the request [for a jury trial] was timely and properly made, but Plaintiff withdraw any demand for jury 20 trial and Plaintiff requests to try this case to the Court (Bench Trial). Defendant seeks a jury trial. 21 22 (Doc. 59-1 at 17 (emphasis in original)). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for a jury 23 trial was indeed timely and properly made when Plaintiff included the request in his 24 Complaint. (See Doc. 1 at 13 (“Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so 25 triable.”)); see also Solis v. Cnty. of L.A., 514 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The rule also 26 specifies that [a jury trial] demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.”). The 27 Court further finds that Defendants properly relied on Plaintiff’s jury trial demand and did 28 not need to file a demand of their own. See U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Jensen, 835 F.3d 1 1100, 1107 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that once on party has made a jury trial demand, the 2 other parties may rely on that demand and need not file demands of their own). Plaintiff 3 asserts that he withdrew his demand for a jury trial and now requests a bench trial. 4 Defendants, on the other hand, maintain that they seek a jury trial. 5 A proper demand may not be withdrawn without the consent of both parties. Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 38(d). Rule 39 “sets forth the manner in which this consent may be granted.” 7 Solis, 514 F.3d at 954. Under Rule 39, once a jury trial demand is made, the trial must be 8 by jury unless “the parties or their attorneys file a stipulation to a nonjury trial or so 9 stipulate on the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39. The stipulation should be clear, unambiguous, 10 and made either (i) in writing and filed with the court or (ii) orally in open court and entered 11 in the record. Solis, 514 F.3d at 955. Here, the Court has not received from the parties any 12 written or oral stipulation to a bench trial, nor is there any evidence on the record that 13 Defendants consented to a withdraw of Plaintiff’s jury trial demand. Therefore, because 14 Defendants are permitted to rely on Plaintiffs jury trial demand and because Defendants do 15 not consent to Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the demand, this Court finds that the trial in this 16 matter shall be a jury trial. 17 Therefore, the Court orders the parties to jointly file the appropriate, required 18 pretrial documents as they are described in this Court’s April 7, 2022 Order Setting Final 19 Pretrial Conference (Doc. 58). This includes the parties’ Joint Stipulated Description of the 20 Case, Joint Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Lists, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, and 21 Joint Proposed Forms of Verdict. (See id.). As the April 7, 2022 Order notes, such 22 documents shall be filed on the docket and emailed to Logan_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov 23 in Microsoft Word® format. (Id. at 2). With the continued Final Pretrial Conference in this 24 matter being set for June 21, 2022 at 3:00 p.m., the Court further orders that these pretrial 25 documents be filed no later than June 17, 2022. 26 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reimbursement for Costs Incurred 27 for Attending Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. 67). Plaintiff requests reimbursement in the 28 amount of $1,083.02 for costs and expenses incurred for attending the Final Pretrial Conference held on May 24, 2022, at which Defendants’ counsel failed to appear. (/d. at 2| 1-2). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, as well as the filed copy of the executed 3| fee agreement between Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel (Doc. 70) which supports Plaintiff’ s 4| asserted counsel hourly rate of $475.00. Having reviewed these relevant documents, and having heard Defendants’ arguments in opposition at the June 6, 2022 Final Pretrial 6 | Conference, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 67) shall be granted in its entirety. 7 Finally, in accordance with this Court’s June 3, 2022 Order (Doc. 68) Plaintiff has 8 | filed a Notice (Doc. 71) with this Court, indicating that he intends to file a motion for 9| default judgment against Defendant Raul Quintero. Plaintiff shall file such motion by no 10 | later than June 28, 2022. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the trial in this matter shall be a jury trial. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file the relevant, 14 | required pretrial documents in accordance with this Court’s April 7, 2022 Order (Doc. 58) later than June 17, 2022. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reimbursement (Doc. 67) is granted. Defendants are directed to reimburse Plaintiff in the amount requested in 18 | the Motion—$1,083.02. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, shall file the 20 | motion for default judgment against Defendant Quintero by no later than June 28, 2022. 71 Dated this 6th day of June, 2022. 22

United States District didge 25 26 27 28