United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
October 19, 2005.
LORETTA UTHELL, Plaintiff,
MID-ILLINOIS CONCRETE, INC., et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge
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
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that a jury demand may not be withdrawn without the consent of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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.