Anthony v. Helix Alliance Decom ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLIFFORD ANTHONY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-1400 HELIX ALLIANCE DECOM, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ jury demand.1 The motion is unopposed.2 Defendants’ decision not to oppose the motion may be treated as consent to a nonjury trial. See Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1980); Gilmore v. Lake Charles PC, L.P., No. 15-4098, 2016 WL 3039813, at *2 (E.D. La. May 27, 2016). Further, plaintiff elected to file his original and amended complaints as admiralty and maritime actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h).3 Accordingly, “there is no right to a jury trial” in this case. T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 587 (5th Cir. 1983); see Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 295 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Had [plaintiff] made a proper Rule 9(h) 1 R. Doc. 25. 2 R. Doc. 26. 3 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 5; R. Doc. 29 ¶ 5. designation . . . the district [court] could have simply denied [plaintiffs] jury demand.”); Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181, 196 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting that “[n]o statute, rule, or constitutional provision confers ...a right” to a jury trial in claims brought under admiralty jurisdiction). Because defendants do not oppose the motion to strike, and because the Court finds that there is no federal right to a jury trial in this action, plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ demand for a jury trial is GRANTED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _15th day of November, 2023. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE