OnPointe Community Care LV LLC v. Charter Health Holdings, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided October 4, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-01235·Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 OnPointe Community Care LV LLC; JWR Case No. 2:22-cv-01235-GMN-DJA 6 Management LLC; and John Rittenour,

7 Plaintiffs, Order

8 v.

9 Charter Health Holdings, Inc.,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Defendant Charter Health Holdings, Inc.’s moves the Court to strike Plaintiffs’ jury 13 demand. (ECF No. 25). Defendant explains that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a purchase 14 agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff OnPointe Community Care LV LLC, which 15 agreement included a waiver of the right to a jury trial. (Id.). Plaintiffs OnPointe, JWR 16 Management LLC, and John Rittenour filed a non-opposition. (ECF No. 31). 17 The federal standard for evaluating jury trial waivers—the “knowing and voluntary” 18 standard—applies in federal court unless the state law is more protective. See In re County of 19 Orange, 784 F.3d 520, 531-32 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant asserts—and Plaintiffs do not 20 dispute—that Delaware law governs the agreement. (ECF No. 25 at 3). And Delaware law is not 21 more protective than federal, having adopted the same “knowing and voluntary” standard. See 22 (Id.); see In re DaimlerChrysler AG Sec. Litig., 2003 WL 22769051, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 19, 23 2003). Given Plaintiffs’ non-opposition, the Court finds that this standard is met. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 25) is 25 granted 26 DATED: October 4, 2022 27 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OnPointe Community Care LV LLC v. Charter Health Holdings, Inc., (D. Nev. 2022).

OnPointe Community Care LV LLC v. Charter Health Holdings, Inc. (OnPointe Community Care LV LLC v. Charter Health Holdings, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

County of Orange v. United States District Court
784 F.3d 520 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)