Admiralty Defendant Still May Demand Jury Based On Counterclaims

A plaintiff bringing a case that satisfies the requirements for both admiralty and diversity jurisdiction can elect to proceed on either basis, the primary difference being that a jury generally is not available if plaintiff files a libel in admiralty rather than an ordinary civil complaint. See In re: Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 1996). A plaintiff might want to exclude a jury for strategic reasons, and therefore could elect the admiralty route.

However, In re: Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 06-1344, 2007 WL 2793112 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2007), illustrates that a defendant can frustrate that election by bringing a declaratory judgment counterclaim and filing a jury demand. In Lockheed Martin, plaintiff successfully moved to strike defen­dant’s jury demand, arguing that the declaratory judgment claim was merely the “flipside” of plaintiff’s affirmative claims, and that defendant should not be permitted an end-run around plaintiff’s admiralty strategy. Defendant filed a mandamus petition.

Noting a split in the circuits, the appellate court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h) permitted a defendant to bring proper non-admiralty counterclaims and to have them tried to a jury. The court granted the writ of mandamus.

Mandamus Not Warranted To Prevent Trial From Improperly Being Tried To Jury

The Seventh Circuit has denied mandamus in a case involving a late jury demand.

In In re Linee Aeree Italiane (Alitalia), 469 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. Nov. 27, 2006), the plaintiff demanded a jury trial after the defendants’ status changed from a state-controlled entity (for which a non-jury trial is provided by statute) to a privatized company. Alitalia claimed that the district court should not have allowed plaintiff to make a jury demand based on facts that developed after the initial filing of the case, and sought mandamus. However, the Seventh Circuit concluded that even if Alitalia’s argument about the timing of a jury demand were correct, having to wait to appeal that issue after the entry of final judgment on a jury verdict would not cause Alitalia the sort of irreparable harm required to support mandamus relief. Instead, the appellate court could vacate the judgment and order a bench trial.

Jury Demand Violated Contractual Waiver Of Jury Trial

The Texas Supreme Court has enforced contract language under which a borrower waived the right to a jury trial on any claim or cause of action arising from a promissory note. In re General Electric Capital Corp., 203 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. Sept. 22, 2006).

General Electric brought a non-jury action on the amount remaining unpaid on a note. The trial court originally posted the case to its non-jury docket, but at some point the borrower filed a jury demand and the court moved the case to its jury calendar. The company never received notice from the borrower of the jury demand, but it did receive forms from the court showing the jury docket was being used. Ten months after the jury demand, the company moved to strike the jury demand due to lack of notice and the violation of the contract.

The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court denied relief, but the high court granted mandamus. It found that the contractual language was conspicuous and enforce­able, that the company never waived it, and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to enforce the contract by striking the jury demand.

Texas Restricts Voir Dire Questions About Weight Jurors Will Give Relevant Evidence

The Texas legislature has guaranteed through statute that jury trials shall be conducted by panels of impartial jurors free from bias or prejudice. And of course one of the purposes of voir dire is to attempt to exclude jurors who are biased or prejudiced. In interpreting that rule, the Texas Supreme Court has adopted a general rule that it is improper to ask prospective jurors what their verdict would be if certain facts were proved.

In Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, No. 03-0914 (Tex. Mar. 10, 2006), the court extended that holding to prohibit voir dire questions addressed to the weight a juror would give to a relevant piece of evidence.

In this case, the court reversed an intermediate appellate court that had found the trial court to have abused its discretion in refusing to permit plaintiff’s counsel to ask prospective jurors whether the fact that plaintiff was not wearing her seat belt would have been determinative of their verdict.