Summary
finding "when a plaintiff elects to pursue a non-jury admiralty action pursuant to Rule 9(h), a counterclaiming defendant is not entitled to a jury trial . . . if the counterclaim arises out of the same operative facts. . . ."
Summary of this case from In Matter of AtkinsonOpinion
Case No. 8:07-cv-1662-T-24-MSS.
March 3, 2008
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 14). Defendant has filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 17).
I. Background
Plaintiff Great Lakes Reinsurance ("Great Lakes") issued an insurance policy covering Defendant Michael Masters' ("Masters") motor yacht. On July 17, 2007, Masters' motor yacht sank while in a slip at ABC Marina. Subsequently, Great Lakes filed this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not responsible for compensating Masters for his loss. In response, Masters asserted a breach of contract counterclaim, alleged diversity jurisdiction, and requested a jury trial. Thereafter, Great Lakes filed the instant motion to strike Masters' demand for a jury trial.
II. Discussion
At issue in this motion is whether a defendant who has filed a counterclaim based on diversity jurisdiction may demand a jury trial when the plaintiff first filed an admiralty suit in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). Masters argues that he a has a Seventh Amendment right to have his breach of contract claim heard by a jury. Further, Masters argues that Great Lakes has undertaken "procedural fencing" to preclude Masters of his right to a jury trial. Masters' arguments are based largely on cases from the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. See In Re: Lockheed Martin Corporation, 503 F. 3d 351 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding the plaintiff's designation of its declaratory judgment claim as an admiralty claim did not prevent the defendant from obtaining a jury trial on its counterclaim that arose at law); see also Wilmington Trust v. United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, 934 F. 2d 1026 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that a defendant's right to jury trial on its counterclaim trumps a Rule 9(h) election by a plaintiff if the defendant alleges an independent basis for jurisdiction). The cases Masters cites clearly articulate that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial trumps a plaintiff's Rule 9(h) election of a bench trial, but these non-binding cases are at odds with a case binding on this Court, Harrison v. Flota Mercante Grancolumbiana, S. A., 577 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1978).
Great Lakes has argued that its invocation of admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9(h) results in a complete non-jury adjudication of the entire litigation, including any counterclaim, even in the face of another asserted basis for jurisdiction. The Harrison case supports Great Lakes' position.
In Harrison, the court concluded that the plaintiff's election to proceed under Rule 9(h) trumped a fourth-party defendant's desire for a jury trial. See id. at 987. In coming to this conclusion, the Harrison court stated that it would not allow the third-party defendant to emasculate the plaintiff's Rule 9(h) election by suing a fourth-party defendant and asserting a claim at law. See id. The court also pointed out that the fourth-party complaint was based on the same set of facts as the plaintiff's first-party complaint, and it noted that the plaintiff had amended his complaint and asserted a claim directly against the fourth-party defendant. See id.
Applying Harrison to the instant case, the Court finds that Masters is not entitled to a jury trial on his counterclaim. Instead, when a plaintiff elects to pursue a non-jury admiralty action pursuant to Rule 9(h), a counterclaiming defendant is not entitled to a jury trial, even if the counterclaim is based on an alternative basis for jurisdiction, if the counterclaim arises out of the same operative facts as the plaintiff's admiralty claim. See id. at 985-88; All Underwriters Subscribing to Certificate of Ins. No. 98B1/800 Including Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. On the Loose Travel Inc., No. 99-0200-CIV, 1999 WL 694212, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 1999); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Banana Servs., Inc., No. 84-1508-Civ-EATON, 1984 WL 1888, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 1984).
II. Conclusion
After careful consideration, the Court finds that Great Lakes' election to proceed in this declaratory action without a jury pursuant to Rule 9(h) trumps Masters' demand for a jury trial on his counterclaim. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Great Lakes' Motion to Strike Demand for a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED, and Great Lakes' Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED.