United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
MERRILL ST. ROMAIN
E.N. BISSO & SON, INC.
B. VITTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Merrill St. Romain (“St.
Romain”)'s Motion for Jury Trial (R. Doc. 133),
Defendant E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. (“E.N.
Bisso”)'s Response (R. Doc. 136), and Plaintiff St.
Romain's Reply (R. Doc. 139). After careful consideration
of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, the
Court grants St. Romain's Motion (R. Doc. 133).
a Jones Act case, filed with jury demand. St. Romain moved
to set an expedited trial on the issue of maintenance and
cure. The Court granted the motion, set the
expedited trial, and then cancelled the trial. The Court
conducted a status conference on December 19, 2019, during
which it ordered that bench trial will commence without a
jury on June 3, 2019.Then, the Court provided two dates
resetting the bench trial: June 7, 2019, or August 1,
2019.The parties were to inform the Court by May
24, 2019, whether the trial would proceed on June
On May 24, the trial was continued and reset for August 1,
3, 2019, the case was transferred from Section
“A” to Section “D” of this Court.
Four days later, St. Romain filed a Motion for Jury
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b), St. Romain asks
this Court to convert the case to a jury trial. Rule 39 grants
the Court discretion to relieve a party from waiver of a jury
trial under Rule 38. When a party invokes Rule 39, the Court
should grant a jury trial in the absence of strong and
compelling reasons to the contrary. A motion for trial by
jury under Rule 39 should be favorably received unless there
are persuasive reasons to deny it. The Court considers five
factors in the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b):
(1) whether the case involves issues which are best tried to
(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;
(5) the reason for the movant's tardiness in requesting a
Daniel, 916 F.2d at 1064 (internal citations
omitted). St. Romain discusses the five factors provided in
Daniel, contending that each factor supports
granting his motion for a jury trial in this
action. E.N. Bisso opposes the motion and argues
that the first, third, and fifth factors of the test in