The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND (Document 16) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUEST JURY TRIAL (Document 17)
On March 19, 2010, Defendant Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("Defendant") filed a motion to strike jury demand. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff Rosie Boparai, M.D., filed a motion to request jury trial. The motions were heard on April 30, 2010, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Jeffrey Lodge, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff Rosie Boparai, M.D., telephonically appeared in pro per.
On July 6, 2009, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint against Defendant Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Title VII, claiming discrimination due to race, color, religion, sex, national origin or reprisal. The crux of Plaintiff's complaint is retaliation for prior "EEOC" activity. As relief, Plaintiff requests "appropriate actions against individuals involved" and undisclosed monetary compensation. See Complaint.
On January 13, 2010, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.
On February 9, 2010, the parties filed a joint scheduling report. In the report, Defendant asserted that a jury trial was not appropriate because Plaintiff failed to make a proper demand pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) and Local Rule 201. At the conference, the Court advised the parties that it would consider the issue upon submission of a motion.
On February 17, 2010, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set a jury trial for June 3, 2011.
On March 19, 2010, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike the jury demand.
On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiff also filed a separate "motion" for jury trial. The Court permitted Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's motion by April 28, 2010, and consolidated the hearings on the two motions.
On April 23, 2010, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. Defendant noted that the opposition was untimely and asserted that Plaintiff was not entitled to be heard at oral argument. Local Rule 230(c).
On April 28, 2010, Defendant also filed a response to Plaintiff's motion for jury trial.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to make a timely jury demand. At the time Plaintiff filed her complaint, ...