Branham v. Miami Valley Hospital/Premier Health Network

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
NIKIA BRANHAM,
Plaintiff,
V.
MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL/
PREMIER HEALTH NETWORK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:24-CV-301
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL
UNDER FED R. CIV. P. 39(B) (DOC. #41)
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Nikia Branham's ("Plaintiff's")
Motion for Jury Trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). Doc. #41. Defendant Miami Valley
Hospital/Premier Health Network ("Defendant") filed a response in opposition to
the motion. Doc. #50, and Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of her motion. As
the time permitted for such a filing has elapsed, the reply memorandum is
considered waived.
Plaintiff's initial Complaint was docketed on February 11, 2025. Doc. #3. In the
initial Complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §
2000e etseq., Plaintiff specifically opted against a jury trial. Doc. #3, PagelD #22.
She later sought to amend her Complaint, adding both a claim under 42 U. S. C. §
1981 and a jury demand. Doc. #24. The Court permitted her to add the new claim
Case: 3:24-cv-00301-WHR-CHG Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

but barred her jury demand. Doc. #29. Because the text setting forth her barred jury
demand was printed on her Amended Complaint, it was docketed nonetheless,
although the Court clarified in response to Defendants' motion that the demand
was not applicable and that the case would be tried before the bench. Doc. #34.
Plaintiff's latest motion for jury trial claims that newly discovered evidence
of malice and retaliation provides adequate justification for the Court to exercise its
discretion and grant a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). Doc. #41. Plaintiff also
claims that her motion should be sustained because: (1) a jury is better suited to
determine credibility of witness testimony; (2) Defendant will not suffer prejudice;
and (3) because Defendant's opposition to a jury trial is a tactical decision made in
conjunction with discovery productions.
"A district court has broad discretion in ruling on a Rule 39(b) motion.'
Kitchen v. Chippewa Valley Schools, 825 F. 2d 1004, 1013 (6th Cir. 1987). In short,
none of the reasons Plaintiff provides justify granting a jury trial, especially when
she expressly waived such an option at the outset of the case. To begin, she makes
much of a nine-page document production, alleging that the new evidence is of
such substantial importance and weight to necessitate a different course of action.
The Court rejects that argument in this case. Although there may be some
evidentiary value to Plaintiff's case, the Court sees no reason why a fairly ordinary
Case: 3:24-cv-00301-WHR-CHG Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

production of nine pages should permit Plaintiff yet another opportunity to
reconsider her own decision to waive a jury.
Plaintiff's argument that a jury is more aptly situated to weigh credibility also
misses its mark. She provides no rationale why a jury is better equipped to do so
than the Court would be, when it sits as factfinder. Although she likely is correct
that Defendant's unwillingness to consent to a jury trial is a tactical decision, she
does not explain why that is impermissible. During this case, the Court expects that
both parties will make tactical decisions regarding whether and how to argue
motions, what evidence to produce at trial, and on a whole host of other issues.
Frankly, this is expected. Indeed, Plaintiff's filing, attempting to transform this case
into a jury trial, is a tactical decision. That does not bar such a filing. Instead, the
Court weighs her motion against the law and the facts of this case and decides the
issue.
In its response. Defendant also discusses the prejudice it would face due to
the fact that it has spent the last 18 months preparing for a bench trial. Doc. 50,
PagelD #622. "The burden placed on a party forced to change its strategy in order
to accommodate a jury trial has been held to be enough to justify the denial of a
Rule 39(b) motion. " Kitchen, 825 F. 2d at 1013 (citing United States v. Unum, Inc.,
658 F. 2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981 )). Plaintiff initially waived her right to a jury
trial. Doc. #3. When she moved to amend her complaint, the Court rejected her
Case: 3:24-cv-00301-WHR-CHG Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

attempt to add a jury demand. Doc. #29. The Court now rejects her renewed attempt
to add such a demand.
Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial under Fed. R. Civ. P 39(b) is OVERRULED.
Date: June 23, 2026 Lj'cj'^^r j4, ^'
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:24-cv-00301-WHR-CHG Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>