Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UTHELL v. MID-ILLINOIS CONCRETE

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


October 19, 2005.

LORETTA UTHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
MID-ILLINOIS CONCRETE, INC., et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff Uthell was ordered to show cause for why she failed to comply with the Court's August 10, 2005, directive to clarify whether she continued to demand a jury trial. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff's counsel has now explained that the August 10th directive was not honored due to an oversight, and new procedures have been instituted in counsel's office to ensure that such an oversight does not happen again. Therefore, no sanction will be assessed.

Plaintiff Uthell's original complaint contained a jury demand; her first amended complaint does not contain a jury demand.*fn1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d) provides that a jury demand may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties. Plaintiff now informs the Court that she purposefully dropped her jury demand. Plaintiff does not indicate whether plaintiff has consulted with defense counsel regarding whether the parties can agree to a non-jury trial. A review of the defendants' answers reveals nothing pertinent to the jury issue. Therefore, plaintiff's jury demand stands at this juncture. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before November 1, 2005, defendants shall file written notice(s) or motion(s), depending on their position(s), regarding whether they consent to withdrawal of the jury demand.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051019

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.