Reversal and Remand on Appeal
The defendant doctor appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to order a bench trial when the defendants had not waived their right to a jury trial in a manner prescribed by law, and that finding waiver was a denial of the defendants’ equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
In its decision, the supreme court made clear that although trial courts have considerable discretion in the control and management of proceedings before them, that discretion is not unlimited. Ultimately, the court held that denying one’s constitutional right to trial due to a failure to meet a court’s self-imposed mediation deadline was an overreach of judicial authority.
Specifically, Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 39(a) outlines how a demand for a trial by jury may not actually result in one. The rule is limited to two scenarios beyond failure to demand a jury at the outset of the case: when both parties stipulate to proceed without a jury, or when the court finds, on its own motion, that there is no right to jury trial on some or all of those issues under the state’s Constitution or statutes. As the parties clearly demanded a jury trial both in their complaint and answer, the court found no exception applied. To underscore this point, the court articulated that the applicable Arkansas statute does not provide authority supporting the circuit court’s scheduling order requiring that mediation be completed thirty days prior to the pretrial hearing date in order to preserve a right to trial.
Accordingly, the court held that the circuit court lacked the authority to divest the parties of their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial.
Takeaways from Taking Away a Right to Jury Trial
Ligation Section leaders agree that the supreme court’s holding is an important reminder that while a court’s authority is far reaching, it has limits. “Mandatory alternative dispute resolution is doubtless here to stay, and parties ignore this requirement at their peril,” observes Wade S. Kolb III, Greenville, South Carolina, cochair of the Section’s LGBT Law and Litigator Committee, “but the Arkansas Supreme Court has made clear that the possible perils do not include a sanction of striking a request for a jury trial.”
Despite the reversal, there are lessons to be learned. “A litigator should consider and determine these elements during the early stages of a matter,” making certain to heed all of a court’s pretrial rules and procedures, says Kenneth M. Klemm, Atlanta, GA, former cochair of the Section’s Pretrial Practice & Discovery Committee. However, in the end, “this ruling should serve as an important reminder of how fundamental the jury trial is to our civil legal system and give comfort to those concerned about how rare this fundamental component is becoming,” says Kolb.