UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 9, 2006
L. & J. G. STICKLEY, INC., PLAINTIFF,
RONALD C. COSSER, D/B/A/ THE CRAFTSMAN, MELISSA COSSER, AND LYLE NOREAULT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, D.J.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses one of three motions pending before the Court, i.e., plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 71) to strike its request for legal damages and to strike defendants' jury demand.*fn1
Defendants do not oppose the withdrawal of all demands for legal relief. Plaintiff's request to strike its demands for legal relief is granted. Service and filing of a second amended complaint is not needed, however; the case will proceed on the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 18) with the demands for legal relief removed.
Defendants oppose only that part of plaintiff's motion as seeks to strike defendants' jury demand. Defendants dispute the view that defendants' disclosures are inadequate to enable plaintiff to prove actual damages. Defendant Ronald Cosser also avers in his opposing affidavit that he believes that plaintiff's efforts in this case "have been motivated by bad faith" and that he wishes the case to be heard by a jury because he "believe[s] that a jury would see this case for what it is."
Inasmuch as the demands for legal relief have been withdrawn, the sole relief demanded in the amended complaint is equitable in nature. Accordingly, there is no basis for a jury trial. Plaintiff's motivation in this respect is irrelevant. The Court strikes defendants' jury demand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 38, 39(a)(1).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 71) is granted as follows: plaintiff's demands for legal relief are stricken from the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 18) and defendants' jury demand is stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.