Serendipity at Sea, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy Number 187581

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 0:20-cv-60520
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA

CASE NO. 20-CV-60520-RAR

SERENDIPITY AT SEA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER 187581,

Defendant. ___________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Objection to the Court’s Order for a Bench Trial and Motion for Jury Trial (“Motion”), [ECF No. 180], filed on February 25, 2023. After the Court ordered expedited briefing, see Paperless Order, [ECF No. 181], Defendant filed a response opposing the Motion. See [ECF No. 186]. Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial, filed almost three years after this action was removed to this Court, is untimely. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 requires that a party serve a jury demand “no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” FED. R. CIV. P. 38(b)(1). A “pleading” for the purposes of Rule 38 are the pleadings listed in Rule 7(a): complaints, answers to complaints, answers to counterclaims, answers to crossclaims, third-party complaints, answers to third-party complaints, and replies to answers. Landaeta v. Arvelaiz, No. 13-22296, 2014 WL 12603176, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a)). If a party does not file a timely jury demand the party waives the right to a jury trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 38(d); see also Thomas v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 661 F. App’x 575, 577 (11th Cir. 2016) (“A party’s failure to serve and file a jury demand in compliance with Rule 38(b) constitutes a waiver Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the “last pleading” directed at the issue was Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 71], filed on December 9, 2020.' This set Plaintiff's deadline to file a jury demand as December 23, 2020. Given that Plaintiff's Motion was filed February 25, 2023, Plaintiffs request for a jury trial is 794 days late. Plaintiff's conclusory statement that it discussed a jury trial with prior counsel and that it believed this case would proceed to a jury trial is unpersuasive given it has previously acknowledged this case would be a bench trial. See Schedule Jointly Proposed by the Parties, [ECF No. 10], at 2 (“This is a non-jury case.”). Therefore, Plaintiff has waived its right to a jury trial. Finally, Plaintiff is incorrect that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit “ordered a jury trial.” Mot. at 3. While the Eleventh Circuit referenced a “jury” in its decision, the clear meaning of these statements was simply that summary judgment was inappropriate and that triable issues remained. Serendipity at Sea, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Pol’y No. 187581, 56 F.4th 1280, 1290 (11th Cir. 2023). Thus, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, [ECF No. 180], is DENIED. This case shall proceed to a bench trial as currently scheduled. See Scheduling Order, [ECF No. 178]. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' There is a strong argument the relevant “pleading” is in fact Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 25]. The Court addresses Defendant’s response to the Fourth Amended Complaint because it views the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. While Plaintiff references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39, it does not analyze the factors for granting trial under Rule 39(b). The Court has nevertheless analyzed the factors and finds they weigh in favor of denying the Motion. See Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 1983) (listing factors). Page 2 of 2