From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trustees of the Northern Nevada Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Mach 4 Constr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 17, 2011
3:08-CV-0578-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Summary

applying the same factors in addressing a stay pending appeal of a magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

Summary of this case from Garity v. Donahoe

Opinion

3:08-CV-0578-LRH-WGC 3:09-CV-0565-LRH-WGC

11-17-2011

TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN NEVADA OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACH 4 CONSTRUCTION, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Before the court is plaintiffs' motion to strike jury demand. Doc. #112.

Refers to the court's docket number.

I. Facts and Background

On October 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed the present action against defendant Mach 4 Construction ("Mach 4") for breach of contract arising from alleged unpaid union and trustee contributions. Doc. #1. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present motion to strike Mach 4's jury demand. Doc. #112.

For a complete history of this action see this court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Doc. #59.
--------

II. Discussion

In their motion, plaintiffs argue that a jury trial on their claims for contribution is unnecessary because their claims sound in equity. See Doc. #112. Although plaintiffs are correct that Mach 4 has no specific right to a jury trial on plaintiffs' claims for contribution, the court may utilize a jury to provide advisory findings of fact. See Everest Capital Ltd. v. Everest Funds Mgmt. LLC, 393 F.3d 755, 762 (8th Cir. 2005). Here, because a jury will already be present in this consolidated trial to address various claims arising in member case no. 3:09-cv-0565, the court finds that utilizing that jury to provide advisory findings of fact on plaintiffs' claims would be useful to assist the court in determining any disputed issues of material fact. Therefore, the court shall deny plaintiffs' motion to strike Mach 4's jury demand.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to strike jury demand (Doc. #112) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Trustees of the Northern Nevada Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Mach 4 Constr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 17, 2011
3:08-CV-0578-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

applying the same factors in addressing a stay pending appeal of a magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

Summary of this case from Garity v. Donahoe

applying the same factors in addressing a stay pending appeal of a magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

Summary of this case from Garity v. Donahoe

applying the same factors in addressing a stay pending appeal of a magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

Summary of this case from Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co.

applying the same factors in addressing a stay pending appeal of a magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

Summary of this case from Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co.
Case details for

Trustees of the Northern Nevada Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Mach 4 Constr.

Case Details

Full title:TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN NEVADA OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH & WELFARE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

3:08-CV-0578-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Citing Cases

Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co.

In exercising its discretion, a court is guided by the following legal principles: (1) has the movant made a…

Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co.

In exercising its discretion, a court is guided by the following legal principles: (1) has the movant made a…