• Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now

A Jury Demand Must be Endorsed, but Not Signed

A Jury Demand Must be Endorsed, but Not Signed

A Jury Demand Must be Endorsed, but Not Signed

August 18, 2016 Posted by Jeremy W. Richter Rules of Civil Procedure

Ex parte North American Adjusters, Inc.: In Alabama under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a jury demand is required to be endorsed, but not signed.

It’s time for a bit of transparency – in my years of practice, it hasn’t occurred to me to question the sufficiency of a jury demand. Maybe it should have. And maybe I didn’t question it because, in all but a handful of instances, I wanted my case to be tried by a jury. But recently in Alabama the question arose of whether a jury demand was sufficient if it was only endorsed and not signed.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided the matter of Ex parte North American Adjusters, Inc. [Ms. 1150278], — So.3d — (Ala. 2016), wherein the Court decided whether an unsigned jury demand endorsement on the plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a trial by jury.

In the underlying case Jeffery Saulsberry v. Green Tree Financial, LLC, In the Circuit Court of Wilcox County, CV-2013-000007, filed a complaint, and included at the end a demand for “A Trial By a Struck Jury” and in each of his claims, he asserted that damages were to be determined by jury. Saulsberry, in an amended complaint, attempted to withdraw his jury demand on the that it was “without proper attestation.” North American Adjusters was opposed to the withdrawal of the jury demand and argued that the demand had been properly attested under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d), which reads in pertinent part: “A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of that parties….” North American Adjusters did not consent to withdrawal of the jury demand. The trial court ruled against North American Adjusters, finding that the jury demand was not endorsed (signed).

Rule 38(b) establishes the requirements for invoking the right to trial by jury: (1) the jury demand, which may be endorsed on the pleading, must be in writing, and (2) the jury demand must be made any time after the filing of the action but not later than thirty days after the service of the  last pleading directed to such issue. The Alabama Supreme Court held: “Nothing in Rule 38(b) requires that an endorsement of a jury demand on a complaint be signed. Rather, Rule 38(b) requires only that the demand  be in writing and that it be timely served.”

The Court further found that Saulsberry had timely filed his endorsed jury demand, and thus he could not withdraw the jury demand without consent of the parties. Therefore, the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying a jury trial.

If you practice takes you to federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 requires that a jury demand be served on the other parties in writing, but likewise does not require that it be signed.

Do your best work. Be your best self.

Get the first three chapters of Level Up Your Law Practice so you can have a successful and sustainable law practice that meets your needs through self-assessment, having a vision for yourself and your practice, and client relationships that are built on trust.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

Can a Lawyer Refuse Service of Discovery by Email?

Can a Lawyer Refuse Service of Discovery by Email?

Mar 27, 2017

“I don’t know what the rules say, but … that’s[...]

Forum Non Conveniens Statute Weighs Factors to Determine Venue

Forum Non Conveniens Statute Weighs Factors to Determine Venue

Oct 20, 2016

Ex parte Tier 1 Trucking, LLC, and James Martin Gray, Jr. - In determining the proper venue under the forum non conveniens statute, heavily weighed factors include the location of the incident and investigation, and the counties of residence of parties and witnesses.

Underinsured Motorist Insurer’s Subrogation Interest in a Lambert Advance

Jul 11, 2016

A UIM insurer does not have a subrogation interest in Lambert advance; the recovery by the insurer from the tortfeasor of a Lambert advance does not create a common fund; and the UIM insurer should not be required to pay attorney's fees for the recovery of the Lambert advance under the common-fund doctrine.

The podcast you didn’t know you needed

Recent Posts

  • Take Control and Live with Purpose with Natasha Hazlett
  • The Year That Was and the Year That Is
  • Intellectual Property Issues for Entrepreneurs with Becki C. Lee
  • Setting Expectations and Delivering on Them with Patricia Baxter
  • Get Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable with Mark Bassingthwaighte

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message
Doing your best work. Be your best self. Let me help you get there with my new book "Level Up Your Law Practice"

© 2021 · Richter Holdings, LLC

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Prev Next