DORSEY v. LEE

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

LATASHA DORSEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-435 (MTT) ) MICHAEL MCMUNN, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER

Plaintiff Latasha Dorsey moves for a jury trial. When no demand for a jury has been made, “the [C]ourt may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). The Court “‘should grant a jury trial in the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary.’” Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d. 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Swofford v. B&W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 1964)).1 The Court has broad discretion to grant Rule 39(b) motions after balancing the following factors: (1) whether the case involves issues which are best tried to a jury; (2) whether granting the motion would result in a disruption of the court's schedule or that of the adverse party; (3) the degree of prejudice to the adverse party; (4) the length of the delay in having requested a jury trial; and (5) the reason for the movant's tardiness in requesting a jury trial. Id. Because Hubbard did not have the

1 The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). benefit of counsel when he filed his pro se complaint, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion GRANTS Dorsey’s motion for a jury trial (Doc. 51). SO ORDERED, this 27th day of August, 2024. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT