Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Epstein v. Epstein

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 27, 2017

Barry Epstein, Plaintiff,
v.
Paula Epstein, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge

         In his third amended complaint filed May 17, 2017, R. 178, the plaintiff, for the first time, demanded a jury trial. The defendant has moved to strike the demand as untimely. R. 184. For the following reasons, the defendant's motion is granted.

         Procedural History

         The original complaint in this case was filed on October 27, 2014. R. 1. It did not contain a jury demand. Nor did the first amended complaint, which was filed on January 12, 2015. R. 22. A proposed second amended complaint, also without a jury demand, was filed on April 23, 2015, R. 38, but an appeal was taken before the Court could rule on the motion to file it, see R. 50. Following resolution of the appeal, the Court held a status hearing on January 6, 2017. See R. 55. During that hearing, plaintiff's counsel requested leave to file a second amended complaint. R. 148 (Jan. 6, 2017 Hrg. Tr.) at 3:11-16. The Court granted that request, see id., and brought to counsel's attention that no jury demand had been made in the original complaint. R. 148 at 22:1-3. In response, counsel stated, “It's better for us, ” referring to a bench trial, adding “I mean [it's] my decision.” Id. at 22:6.

         A second amended complaint without a jury demand was filed on January 27, 2017. R. 70. At a status hearing held on February 7, 2017, just a few days before the defendant's answer was due, the Court inquired whether either party would be making a jury demand. See R. 82; see also R. 105 (Feb. 7, 2017 Hrg. Tr.) at 22-24.

         Plaintiff's counsel answered as follows:

If we haven't filed for [a jury trial], I would be content with a bench trial because I think these are more, you know, facts such that a judge can better decide on than an emotional jury panel. But client did say he wanted the jury, but, again, I believe that is my decision too. So --

R. 105 (Feb. 7, 2017 Hrg. Tr.) at 24:6-10. The defendant filed her answer, without a jury demand or counterclaims, on February 10, 2017. R. 88.

         On May 17, 2017, more than three months later, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, this time, demanding a jury trial. R. 178. The third amended complaint struck the plaintiff's previously-asserted claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but did not add or substantively alter any of the other six claims asserted in the second amended complaint. See Id. The third amended complaint also added the following relevant factual information:

• The location of the plaintiff's computer in the marital home, id. at ¶ 10.
• The fact that the parties were not authorized to use each other's computers, id. at ¶ 11.
• The fact that the plaintiff used his computer for both work and personal purposes, id. at ¶ 12.
• Specific examples of allegedly intercepted emails (which were referred to more generally in second amended complaint), id. at ¶20A-D.

         The third amended complaint also contained a number of irrelevant allegations related to dismissed-defendant Jay Frank, id. at ¶¶ 27, 29, 34A-B, as well as minor embellishments and stylistic and editorial changes, see ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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