David Byers, D.C. v. Roadsafe Traffic Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation d/b/a Roadsafe

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02412
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 25-cv-02412-PAB-MDB

DAVID BYERS, D.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a Roadsafe,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Jury Trial Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b) [Docket No. 20]. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. I. BACKGROUND1 On July 27, 2023, plaintiff was riding his bicycle in Colorado Springs. Docket No. 5 at 3, ¶ 9. Earlier that day, defendant’s agent used a vehicle to paint solid white lane markings on the road. Id., ¶ 8. Plaintiff did not know that the white lines were freshly painted and slick. Id., ¶ 13. When plaintiff rode over the freshly painted lines, his bike slid out from under him, and he was thrown over the handlebars. Id., ¶ 14. Plaintiff sustained numerous injuries. Id. at 3-4, ¶ 17. On July 15, 2025, plaintiff filed suit in state court, bringing claims for negligence and negligence per se. Id. at 3-7, ¶¶ 7-34. Plaintiff seeks money damages. Id. at 7.

1 The following facts are taken from plaintiff’s complaint, Docket No. 5, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. On August 5, 2025, this action was removed to federal court. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff did not serve or file a timely jury demand under Rule 38(b). Docket No. 20 at 2. On October 3, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). See generally id. Defendant does not oppose the motion. Id. at 1. II. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b) states that “[i]ssues on which a jury trial is not properly demanded are to be tried by the court. But the court may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). “[A]bsent strong and compelling reasons to the contrary, a district court should exercise its discretion under Rule 39(b) and grant a jury trial.” Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d 408, 409 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “[A] tort action for money damages is entitled to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 729 (1999) (Scalia, J, concurring). Here, plaintiff’s negligence action is a tort action for money damages. Moreover, defendant does not oppose plaintiff’s request for a jury trial. Docket No. 20

at 1. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 39(b), the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial III. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Jury Trial Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b) [Docket No. 20] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's claims may be tried by a jury. DATED April 15, 2026. BY THE COURT: Lia of PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge