Rhine v. DML Capital Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE DANIEL RHINE, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00107-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. DML CAPITAL, INC.; DML CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; DML CAPITAL MORTGAGE FUND, LLC; CAMPOS FINANCIAL CORP.; LIONSCOVE, INC.; LIONSCOVE MANAGEMENT, LLC; LIONSCOVE FUND I, LLC,

Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Rhine sued Defendants in King County Superior Court with a complaint that included the following statement in its caption: “Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial.” Dkt. No. 1–1. Defendants removed the case, Dkt. No. 1, and Rhine now moves for a jury trial after the parties failed to reach an agreement on whether he may request a jury trial at this stage of the case. Dkt. No. 26. Defendants argue Rhine failed to properly demand a jury under state and federal law. Dkt. No. 29. Setting aside the question of whether Rhine timely filed a jury demand, the

Court exercises its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b) to grant a

trial. Rhine’s complaint caption was “sufficiently clear to alert both the

Defendants and the district court ‘that a jury trial was requested.” Solis v. Cnty. of L.A., 514 F.3d 946, 950-953 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lutz v. Glendale Union High G Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Court’s discretion is appropriate here given Rhine’s pro se status, his right to a jury trial otherwise, and the absence

of any prejudice to Defendants. Jd. (reversing denial of jury trial due to pro se

g |/plaintiffs pre-trial procedural mishap). Thus, the Court GRANTS Rhine’s motion for a jury trial. Dkt. No. 26.

Dated this 9th day of September, 2025.

Z ? Li ) Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge