Rhine v. DML Capital Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIEL RHINE, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00107-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR JURY DEMAND v. 10 DML CAPITAL, INC.; DML CAPITAL 11 MANAGEMENT, LLC; DML CAPITAL MORTGAGE FUND, LLC; CAMPOS 12 FINANCIAL CORP.; LIONSCOVE, INC.; LIONSCOVE MANAGEMENT, 13 LLC; LIONSCOVE FUND I, LLC,

14 Defendants. 15

16 Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Rhine sued Defendants in King County Superior Court 17 with a complaint that included the following statement in its caption: “Complaint 18 for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial.” Dkt. No. 1–1. Defendants removed the 19 case, Dkt. No. 1, and Rhine now moves for a jury trial after the parties failed to 20 reach an agreement on whether he may request a jury trial at this stage of the case. 21 Dkt. No. 26. Defendants argue Rhine failed to properly demand a jury under state 22 and federal law. Dkt. No. 29. 23 1 Setting aside the question of whether Rhine timely filed a jury demand, the

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

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

4 Defendants and the district court ‘that a jury trial was requested.” Solis v. Cnty. of 5 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 7 here given Rhine’s pro se status, his right to a jury trial otherwise, and the absence

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

g |/plaintiffs pre-trial procedural mishap). 10 Thus, the Court GRANTS Rhine’s motion for a jury trial. Dkt. No. 26.

11 12 Dated this 9th day of September, 2025.

13 Z ? Li ) 14 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23