Nview Health, Inc. v. Sheehan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

NVIEW HEALTH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 8:21-cv-385-VMC-TGW

v.

DAVID V. SHEEHAN, M.D.,

Defendant.

__________________________ /

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff

Nview Health, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. #

157), filed on November 23, 2022. Dr. David Sheehan filed his

response on December 7, 2022. (Doc. # 166). The Motion is

denied.

I. Background

Both the Court and the parties are familiar with the

facts of this case, and thus, the Court need not reiterate

them here.

Dr. Sheehan included in his answer and counterclaims a

request for a jury trial “on all issues raised in his

counterclaims that are triable by a jury.” (Doc. # 47 at 76).

Nview did not include a jury demand in any of its pleadings.

The parties filed a Case Management Report on April 8, 2021,

indicating that the case should be set for jury trial. (Doc.

# 25). On April 19, 2021, this Court entered its Case

Management and Scheduling Order setting this case for a jury

trial during the June 2022 trial term. (Doc. # 26). The Court

entered an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order on

October 22, 2021, upon Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend

the Case Management and Scheduling Order, setting the case

for a jury trial during the Court’s August 2022 trial term.

(Doc. # 64). On April 4, 2022, the Court entered a Second

Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, once again

setting the case for a jury trial during the Court’s December

2022 trial term. (Doc. # 95). The parties filed a Joint

Pretrial Statement on November 7, 2022, affirming that this

case is set for a jury trial and submitting proposed jury

instructions. (Doc. # 153-7).

In its Order on the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment, the Court dismissed all of Dr. Sheehan’s

counterclaims except one of his breach of contract claims,

for which he seeks only injunctive relief. (Doc. # 147). Now,

Nview seeks to strike Dr. Sheehan’s jury demand.

Nview filed its Motion to Strike Jury Demand on November

23, 2022. (Doc. # 157). Dr. Sheehan responded on December 7,

2022. (Doc. # 166). The Motion is now ripe for review.

II. Legal Standard

The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is deeply

ensconced in American jurisprudence and is an “essential

component to our federal judicial system.” FGDI, Inc. v.

Bombadier Capital Rail, Inc., 383 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1352 (M.D.

Fla. 2005). “The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to

trial by jury in suits in which legal rights are to be

determined in contrast to those in which equitable rights and

remedies are involved.” Phillips v. Kaplus, 764 F.2d 807,

811–12 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Parsons v. Bedford, 28 U.S.

433, 466 (1830)). Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure underscores, “[t]he right of trial by jury . . . is

preserved to the parties inviolate.” Rule 38 further

explains, “[o]n any issue triable of right by a jury, a party

may demand a jury trial” and “[a] proper demand may be

withdrawn only if the parties consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a),

(d).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a) states: “[t]he

trial on all issues so demanded must be by jury unless . . .

the court, on motion or on its own, finds that on some or all

of those issues there is no federal right to a jury trial.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a). “Motions to strike are considered

‘drastic’ and are disfavored by the courts.” Gyenis v.

Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 8:12-cv-805-VMC-AEP, 2013 WL

3013618, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2013) (quoting Thompson v.

Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348

(M.D. Fla. 2002)).

“The Court must, as its solemn duty, jealously guard the

right to a jury trial and indulge every reasonable presumption

against waiver.” Leahy-Fernandez v. Bayview Loan Servicing,

LLC, No. 8:15-cv-2380-VMC-TGW, 2016 WL 410010, at *2 (M.D.

Fla. Feb. 3, 2016) (collecting cases). “[A] district court’s

discretion to deny a jury trial is ‘very narrowly limited and

must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury

trial.’” Continental Cas. Co. v. First Financial Employee

Leasing, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-2372-JDW-TGW, 2010 WL

11453164, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 24, 2010) (quoting Borgh v.

Gentry, 953 F.2d 1309. 1311 (11th Cir. 1992)).

In the Eleventh Circuit, “the general rule governing

belated jury requests under Rule 39(b) is that the trial court

should grant a jury trial in the absence of strong and

compelling reasons to the contrary.” Perez v. Holt, No. 8:09-

cv-261-VMC-MAP, 2010 WL 2822170, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 16,

2010) (citation omitted). Courts consider the following

factors in deciding a Rule 39(b) motion: “(1) whether the

case involves issues which are best tried to a jury; (2)

whether granting the motion would result in a disruption of

the court’s schedule or that of the adverse party; (3) the

degree of prejudice to the adverse party; (4) the length of

the delay in having requested a jury trial; and (5) the reason

for the movant’s tardiness in requesting a jury trial.”

Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 1983).

Still, district courts “have broad discretion” in considering

such motions. Id.

III. Analysis

Nview filed its Motion to Strike pursuant to Rule 39(a).

It argues that Dr. Sheehan does not have a right to a jury

trial due to the equitable nature of his remaining

counterclaim. (Doc. # 157 at 5). While the remaining

counterclaim is for an express breach of contract, Dr. Sheehan

seeks only injunctive relief. (Id.). Therefore, according to

Nview, Dr. Sheehan’s remaining counterclaim is equitable in

nature, and he does not have a right to trial by jury. (Id.

at 6).

Dr. Sheehan responds that his demand should be honored

for two reasons. First, his demand covers issues in Nview’s

complaint, as many of the claims in the complaint and

counterclaims were mirror-images of each other. (Doc. # 166

at 4). Second, he argues that he did not waive his right to

a jury trial on Nview’s claims and his defenses to those

claims. (Id. at 6). Alternatively, he asks the Court to

exercise its discretion under Rule 39(b) to order a jury trial

on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded.

The Court declines to strike Dr. Sheehan’s jury demand.

The parties have proceeded throughout this case as if the

case were going to be tried by a jury. Each of the three Case

Management and Scheduling Orders has set the case for jury

trial. Other courts in this district have considered a party’s

consent to jury trial when deciding whether to strike a jury

demand. See Roth v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:15-

cv-783-JES-MRM, 2016 WL 7473818, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29,

2016) (finding that by “signing the parties’ Case Management

Report selecting the ‘jury trial’ option” the defendant

consented to a jury trial and thus waived its right to invoke

the plaintiff’s waiver of her jury right); Galle v. Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-407-PAM-CM, 2017 WL 2972072,

at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2017) (denying motion to strike

jury demand in part because party sought to strike the jury

demand only after the parties had “represented the case as a

jury trial in their joint Case Management Report”). The

parties also submitted proposed jury instructions and verdict

forms prior to the November 28, 2022, pretrial conference.

The Court acknowledges that, after the dismissal of all

but one of his counterclaims, Dr. Sheehan’s remaining

counterclaim seeks only equitable relief and is not entitled

to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. See Hard Candy,

LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc., 921 F.3d 1343, 1353

(11th Cir. 2019) (“[I]njunctive relief is the quintessential

form of equitable remedy; it does not entitle a plaintiff to

a jury trial[.]”). However, the Court also understands that

nearly all of the issues in Dr. Sheehan’s counterclaims for

which he demanded jury trial were mirror-images of the issues

presented in Nview’s claims. Each claim brought by the parties

related to the parties’ respective contractual rights and

revolved around the same operative facts.

Dr. Sheehan is entitled to demand a jury trial based on

Nview’s claims. See Borgh v. Gentry, 953 F.2d 1309, 1311 (11th

Cir. 1992) (“[T]he issue of breach of contract is a legal

issue to be tried by a jury.”). Nview is still pursuing

several contractual and tort claims in which it seeks damages

– quintessential legal issues and remedies for which Dr.

Sheehan is entitled to demand a jury trial. Therefore, the

Court construes Dr. Sheehan’s jury demand broadly, to

encompass the overlapping issues in his now-dismissed

counterclaims and Nview’s claims. See Id. at 1311 (“[A]

court’s discretion is very narrowly limited and must,

wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.”

(quoting Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510

(1959))).

Even if the Court read Dr. Sheehan’s original jury demand

narrowly, it would grant his Rule 39(b) request. This case

involves contractual and tort claims for damages that are

best decided by a jury. Allowing a jury trial would not

disrupt the Court’s schedule, delay the proceedings, or

prejudice either party as the case has been set for jury trial

since April 2021. Dr. Sheehan’s tardiness in making this

request is also excusable. His jury demand was valid until

the Court dismissed all but one of his counterclaims.

The question of whether Dr. Sheehan was entitled to

demand a jury on the issues raised by his counterclaims only

arose after the Court entered its summary judgment order on

November 17, 2022. The Court will not strike the demand on

the eve of trial, when both parties have operated under the

assumption that the case would be tried by a jury throughout

every phase of the litigation. See Brown Jordan Int’l Inc. v.

Carmicle, No. 0:14-cv-60629, 2015 WL 11197774, at *1 (S.D.

Fla. Aug. 27, 2015) (“Even if the Court were to assume, for

the sake of argument, that Defendants’ Motion to Strike has

merit, the Motion cannot be granted without substantial

prejudice to Plaintiff. . . . Plaintiff has prepared his case

for a trial by jury for an extended period of time, and this

case is in the final stages of preparation for trial.”).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

Plaintiff Nview Health, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Jury

Demand (Doc. # 157) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

19th day of December, 2022.

bio I. Heen, jut

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE