"Plaintiff disingenuously first
argues that it delayed “less than one week” in making the within
motion because Defendants did not “file an objection” to the
untimely jury demand or “put the Plaintiff on notice in any
fashion” that the demand was untimely until March 23, 2017. See
Plaintiff’s Motion at p. 6. In so doing, Plaintiff apparently
urges this Court to hold – with absolutely no statutory, case
law or other authority – that Plaintiff’s delay in making the
present motion should only be measured from the time Defendants
first advised Plaintiff not only that its jury demand was
untimely, but also that its attempted resort to self-help was
improper. There is no known (or cited) authority for the
proposition that Defendants were obligated to educate Plaintiff
regarding the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a case counsel chose to file in federal court
(albeit clearly an improper one), or that Defendants’ conduct is
even a factor in determining the length of the Plaintiff’s delay
in making the Motion.8 Plaintiff is desperately attempting to
shift blame to Defendants for Tauriga’s lack of explaining its
failure in making the Motion in a timely manner, as if to hope
this will somehow deflect responsibility for Plaintiff’s 87 day
delay. However, as the previously cited authorities make clear,
there can be no good faith dispute that the delay is measured
from the last date on which Plaintiff could have timely filed a
jury demand (January 3, 2017), rather than from the time
Plaintiff’s self-serving assumption that this matter would be
tried by a jury was rejected."
ROTFLMAO
