The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DOWNHOLE & DESIGN INTERNATIONAL CIVIL ACTION
CORPORATION
VERSUS CASE NO. 22-3819
ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
This litigation arises out of property damage caused by Hurricane Ida.1 Before the Court is
Plaintiff Downhole & Design International Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) “Unopposed Motion for a
Jury Trial.”2 In the motion, Plaintiff requests that the March 31, 2025 trial date be converted from
a bench trial to a jury trial.3 Plaintiff represents that it inadvertently omitted a demand for a jury
trial in the Complaint it filed on October 12, 2022.4 Plaintiff also represents that “it seems that
both parties were unaware they had not requested a jury and accepted a bench trial” at the recent
scheduling conference they attended with the Court.5 Plaintiff notes that since the Court issued the
Scheduling Order, the parties have not filed any pending motions or other pleadings.6 The sole
remaining Defendant, Arch Specialty Insurance Company (“Defendant”), does not oppose the
1 Rec. Doc. 1.
2 Rec. Doc. 39.
3 Rec. Doc. 39-1 at 1.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
1
motion.7
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b), “the court may, on motion, order a jury
on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded.”8 Because the right to trial by jury is a
significant right, the Fifth Circuit has made clear that district courts “should grant a jury trial in
the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary.”9 Thus, “[a] motion for trial by jury
under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b)] ‘should be favorably received unless there are
persuasive reasons to deny it.’”10 A court must consider the following factors in assessing a motion
pursuant to Rule 39(b):
(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
an 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.11
The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion. Under the
first factor, other sections of this Court have recognized that “insurance coverage disputes and bad
faith claims are routinely tried by juries.”12 Under the second and third factors, granting the motion
would not result in a disruption to the Court’s schedule or prejudice Defendant because there is
7 Id.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Daniel Int’l Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 916 F.2d 1061, 1064 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Swofford v.
B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 1964)).
10 Id. (quoting United States v. Unum, 658 F.2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1981)).
11 Id. (quoting Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 1983)).
12 Imperial Trading Co., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 06-4262, 2009 WL 1212469, at *2
(E.D. La. Apr. 30, 2009) (Vance, J.) (citing Manino v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 06-6627, 2007 WL 1672228, at *1
(E.D. La. June 7, 2007) (Duval, J.); Korbel v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 06-7283, 2007 WL 2406996, at *3 (E.D. La.
Aug. 21, 2007) (Engelhardt, J.).
2
still substantial time before the trial scheduled for March 31, 2025. Defendant does not oppose the
motion and there are no other pending motions before the Court in this matter. Under the fourth
factor, the motion was filed considerably later than the deadline for demanding a jury trial pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), as Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 12, 2022 but
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 23, 2024.13 However, Plaintiff filed the motion relatively
quickly after the Court issued the Scheduling Order on April 23, 2024 and Plaintiff learned that
the matter was set for a bench trial.14 Under the last factor, Plaintiff explains that it inadvertently
omitted a jury demand in the Complaint and it was not aware at the recent scheduling conference
with the court that this matter was set for a bench trial. Other sections of this Court have recognized
that “delay, error, and inadvertence do not represent strong and compelling reasons to deprive
plaintiffs of their Constitutional jury right.”15 Therefore, these factors weigh strongly in favor of
granting Plaintiff’s motion for a trial by jury.
Accordingly,
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). See Rec. Doc. 1.
14 Rec. Doc. 36.
15 Imperial Trading, 2009 WL 1212469, at *4.
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Downhole & Design International
Corporation’s “Unopposed Motion for a Jury Trial”'® is GRANTED. Trial will commence in this
matter on March 31, 2025, at 9:00 am with a jury.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 24th day of May, 2024.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 Rec. Doc. 39.