Fife and Company's Motion To Strike CBAI's Jury Demand

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 7
Nate D. Ashcraft (9497) Email: [email protected] Jonathan K. Hansen (12349) Email: [email protected] HANSEN BLACK ANDERSON ASHCRAFT 2940 West Maple Loop Drive, Suite 103 Lehi, Utah 84043 Telephone: (801) 922-5004 Facsimile: (801) 922-5019 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.; a Florida corporation, Plaintiffs, v. TONAQUINT, INC., a Utah corporation; ST. GEORGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS JURY DEMAND AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
Case No. 2:13-cv-00806-PMW Judge Paul M. Warner
TONAQUINT, INC., a Utah corporation; ST. GEORGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Counter Plaintiffs, vs. CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.; a Florida corporation, Counter Defendants.
*******
Defendants Tonaquint, Inc. (Tonaquint) and St. George Investments, LLC (SGI) (Tonaquint and SGI are sometimes collectively referred to herein as Defendants), by and through counsel and pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(a) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, hereby submit this motion to strike Plaintiff Cord Blood America, Inc.s jury demand, and memorandum supporting Defendants motion. RELIEF SOUGHT AND GROUNDS FOR MOTION Defendants hereby move the Court to enter an Order striking the jury demand set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and requiring that all claims asserted by the parties in the above-captioned action proceed as a bench trial. This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff expressly waived its right to a jury trial through those agreements that are relevant to this action. INTRODUCTION On or about August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Cord Blood America, Inc. (CBAI) initiated the above-captioned action by filing its Complaint and Jury Demand. The allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint against Defendants are centered on a transaction that took place with Tonaquint in 2012. That transaction was memorialized in various transaction documents, including a Secured Convertible Promissory Note, Securities Purchase Agreement, and Security Agreement. Plaintiff negotiated, approved and executed each of these agreements. Though the applicable transaction agreements contain clear and unambiguous jury waiver provisions, Plaintiff has, nonetheless, demanded a jury trial in this matter. However, because Plaintiff has expressly waived its right to a trial by jury, the court should strike Plaintiffs jury demand and enter an Order requiring that this matter proceed as a bench trial.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On or about August 30, 2013, Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned action by
filing its Complaint and Jury Demand. (See Plaintiffs Complaint and Jury Demand on file with the Court (Complaint)). 2. The transaction that is the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint was memorialized
through various transaction documents, including a Secured Convertible Promissory Note, Securities Purchase Agreement, and Security Agreement. (Declaration of John M. Fife (2/20/14) (Fife Decl.), 3). 3. On or about June 27, 2012, CBAI entered into a Secured Convertible Promissory
Note (Promissory Note). (Id. at 4, and Exhibit A thereto). 4. Paragraph 24 of the Promissory Note contains the following unambiguous and
conspicuous language: THE COMPANY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS NOTE OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. (See Exhibit A to Fife Decl.) (emphasis in original). 5. On or about June 27, 2012, CBAI entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement
(Purchase Agreement). (Id. at 5, and Exhibit B thereto). 6. Paragraph 13.15 of the Purchase Agreement contains the following unambiguous
and conspicuous language: Waiver of Jury Trial. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE TO DEMAND THAT ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR 3
THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE PARTIES HERETO BE TRIED BY JURY. THIS WAIVER EXTENDS TO ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ARISING UNDER COMMON LAW OR ANY APPLICABLE STATUTE, LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION. FURTHER EACH PARTY HERETO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING IT RIGHT TO DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY. (See Exhibit B to Fife Decl.) (emphasis in original). 7. On or about June 27, 2012, CBAI entered into a Security Agreement. (Id. at 6
and Exhibit C thereto). 8. Paragraph 8.10 of the Security Agreement contains the following unambiguous
and conspicuous language: Waiver of Jury Trial. EACH PARTY TO THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE TO DEMAND THAT ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT OR THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE PARTIES HERETO BE TRIED BY JURY. THIS WAIVER EXTENDS TO ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ARISING UNDER COMMON LAW OR ANY APPLICABLE STATUTE, LAW, RULE OR REGULATION. FURTHER, EACH PARTY HERETO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING ITS RIGHT TO DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY. (See Exhibit C to Fife Decl.) (emphasis in original). 9. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs agreement to the above-referenced agreements and
jury waiver provisions, Plaintiff has, nonetheless, improperly demanded a trial by jury. (See Complaint, at p. 23). ARGUMENT The law in Tenth Circuit is clear that a right to a trial by jury may be waived by contract. The right to a jury trial in the federal courts is governed by federal law. Telum, Inc. v. E.F.
Hutton Credit Corporation, 859 F.2d 835, 837 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 221-22, 83 S. Ct. 609, 609-10, 9 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1963) (per curiam) (jury trial right controlled by federal law to insure uniformity in exercise required by seventh amendment)). Agreements waiving the right to trial by are neither illegal nor contrary to public policy. Id. (citing McCarthy v. Wynne, 126 F.2d 620, 623 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 640, 63 S. Ct. 31, 87 L. Ed 515 (1942); see Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Crane, 804 F.2d 828, 832 (4th Cir. 1986) (right to jury trial, although fundamental, may be knowingly and intentionally waived by contract); K.M.C. Co. v. Irving Trust Co., 757 F.2d 752, 755 (6th Cir. 1985) (considering it clear that parties to a contract may by prior written agreement waive the right to a jury trial)). In the instant action, the waiver of trial by jury is clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous in multiple contract documents. By executing the referenced agreements Plaintiff knowingly and intentionally waived its right to trial by jury. As set forth above, such agreements are neither illegal nor contrary to public policy. Accordingly, Plaintiff is bound by those agreements and its jury demand should be stricken. It is expected that Plaintiff will attempt to argue that its allegations of fraud entitle it to a jury trial, at least on that claim. However, such an argument would be unavailing. The Tenth Circuit has held that allegations of fraud in the inducement going to the contract generally, are insufficient to invalidate a jury waiver provision. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403-04, 87 S. Ct. 1801, 1805-06, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270 (1967); Meyer v. Dans un Jardin, S.A., 816 F.2d 533, 538 (10th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand for a trial by jury should be stricken and this matter should proceed as a bench trial.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the foregoing Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Jury Demand and enter an Order requiring that this matter proceed as a bench trial. DATED this 20th day of February, 2014. HANSEN BLACK ANDERSON ASHCRAFT
/s/ Nate D. Ashcraft Attorneys for Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 20th day of February, 2014, I electronically filed, and caused to be served via Notice of Electronic Filing, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS JURY DEMAND AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM upon the following: David L. Mortensen [email protected] Jill M. Pohlman [email protected] Jose A. Abarca [email protected] STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-4904
/s/ Nate D. Ashcraft

Fife and Company's Motion To Strike CBAI's Jury Demand

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fife and Company's Motion To Strike CBAI's Jury Demand

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fife and Company's Motion To Strike CBAI's Jury Demand

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 2:13-cv-00806-PMW Judge Paul M. Warner

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 7

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 7

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 7

/s/ Nate D. Ashcraft Attorneys for Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs

Case 2:13-cv-00806-RJS Document 27 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 7

/s/ Nate D. Ashcraft

You might also like