THOMAS SCIORTINO v. IN RE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN RECONVENTION THOMAS SCIORTINO AND HIS ATTORNEY IN FACT RONALD SCIORTINO AND DEFENDANT IN RECONVENTION RONALD SCIORTINO (2017)

Relators seek review of the trial court's March 29, 2017 denial of their motion and order for a jury trial. Relator (Thomas J. Sciortino) filed his “Jury Cash Deposit Order Pursuant to La. Code of Civ. P. Art. 1734.1” on November 2, 2016; however, the trial court did not sign the Order until March 28, 2017, less than thirty days prior to trial.

We pretermit a discussion of whether the trial court erred in denying the jury trial as untimely on March 28, 2017. The record before us reflects that the trial court allowed defendants-respondents to file an Amended Reconventional Demand in February, 2017 (Relators indicate that it was filed on February 17, 2017; the copy contained in the record is not stamped by Clerk of Court, although the certificate of service is dated February 17, 2017).

La. C.C.P. art. 1734 C specifically provides that a “pleading demanding a trial by jury shall be filed not later than ten days after either the service of the last pleading directed to any issue triable by jury, or the granting of a motion to withdraw a demand for a trial by jury.” Since Relator's Answer to the Amended Reconventional Demand is the last pleading directed to an issue triable by a jury, the request for a jury trial contained therein is timely. We therefore find that the trial court erred in denying that request for a jury trial as moot.

We grant the writ application and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

New Orleans, Louisiana this day 12th day of April, 2017.

JUDGE DANIEL L. DYSART JUDGE EDWIN A. LOMBARD JUDGE MADELEINE M. LANDRIEU