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.

O'Jeda v. Viacom, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 3, 2014

CASEY O'JEDA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
VIACOM, INC., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.

On August 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this action against Viacom In Music Production Inc., and MTV Networks Enterprises, Inc. (together, "I recover unpaid minimum wages allegedly owed to them for work perforn Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and the New ("NYLL"), § 650 et seq. On December 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion Management Plan and Scheduling Order, entered on December 4, 2013 (E indicate that the action would be tried by a jury. (Docket No. 21). And or Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Complaint to add an additional name class action claims under California law. (Docket No. 38).

Plaintiffs' first motion - for leave to amend the Case Management Order to reflect a jury trial demand - is DENIED substantially for the reas Defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to the motion. (Docket No. Plaintiffs themselves implicitly concede in their memorandum of law (Doct failed to make a timely request for a jury, as they did not make a jury demat days of the answer, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), and affirmatively stipulated in the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which was so ordered by the Court, that the case would be tried without a jury. (Docket No. 20 ¶ 17). To be sure, Rule 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that even though "[i]ssues on which a jury trial is not properly demanded are to be tried by the court, " the Court may, nevertheless, "on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded." But the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that "inadvertence in failing to make a timely jury demand does not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b).'" Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 356 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Noonan v. Cunard S.S. Co., 375 F.2d 69, 70 (2d Cir. 1967) (Friendly, J.)).[1] Here, as Plaintiffs' sole excuse is "inadvertent error" (Docket No. 25, at 2), the Court cannot grant the relief sought. See, e.g., Raymond v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 148 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1998) (stating that "insofar as plaintiff offers no explanation beyond mere inadvertence for his failure to timely serve the jury demand, the district court erred... in granting plaintiffs Rule 39(b) motion").

Plaintiffs' second motion - for leave to amend the Complaint to add a new Plaintiff and class action claims under California law - is GRANTED as unopposed and substantially for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' memorandum of law. (Docket No. 39). Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within one week of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 21 and 38.

SO ORDERED.


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.