BB Fly Trucking LLC v. Regions Bank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BB FLY TRUCKING LCC, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action No. H-24-4512
REGIONS BANK,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Jury
Demand (Document No. 46), and Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Documents
Redacted and Under Seal in Connection with Defendant's Reply in Support of
Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Document No. 74). Having reviewed the motions,
submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion to strike
Plaintiffs jury demand ~hould be granted and the motion to file under seal should
be denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff BB Fly Trucking LLC ("Plaintiff')
is a small trucking company owned by a non-party to this case, Natasha Galloway
("Galloway"). On October 25, 2023, Galloway deposited a check oh behalf of
Plaintiff in the amount of $30,000 with Defendant Regions Bank ("Defendant").
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

Shortly thereafter, Defendant issued a notice to Plaintiff stating that $5,300 of the
check would be held until October 26, 2023. Defendant then issued a second notice
to Plaintiff stating that $24,475 of the check would be held until November 2, 2023.
On October 26, 2023, the first $5,300 hold was released. However, the second
$24,475 hold was not released until November 23, 2023, after Galloway contacted
a local news station for assistance.
Based on the foregoing, on October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filedthis lawsuit in the
61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, asserting claims against
Defendant 	for 	breach 	of 	contract, 	violation 	of 	Regulation 	CC, 	negligence,
negligence per se, breach of warranty, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. 1 On November 15, 2024, Defendant removed the case to this Court
pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. On January 28, 2026, Defendant moved to strike
Plaintiffs jury demand. 2 On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff responded in opposition. 3
On February 25, 2026, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion. 4 Lastly, on
1 See Notice of Removal, Document No. 	1, Exhibit A-2 at 10-13 (Plaintiff's
Complaint).
2 See Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand, Document No. 46 at 1.
3 See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Document
No. 57 at 1.
4 Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Document No.
64 at 1.
2
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

March 2, 2026, Defendant moved for leave to file documents connected to its reply
under seal. 5
IL LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs jury demand contending that "[p]ursuant
to the applicable contract between Regions and BB Fly, Plaintiff contractually
waived its right to a jury trial." 6 In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendant's
motion should be denied, arguing that the right to a jury trial was not waived.
Generally, "[t]he right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment
of the Constitution--or as provided by a federal statute-is preserved to the parties
inviolate." Fed. R. Civ. P.R. 38(a). However, "[c]ourts have_long honored parties'
agreements to waive the jury right if the waiver is knowing and voluntary." Pizza
Hut LLC v. Pandya, 79 F.4th 535, 538 (5th Cir. 2023). Once the party moving to
strike a jury demand establishes a facially valid contract containing a jury waiver,
the burden,shifts to the nonmovant to show it is nonetheless entitled to a jury. See
id. at 541.
5 See Motion for Leave to File Documents Redacted and Under Seal in Connection
with Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Document No. 74 at
1.
6 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand, Document No. 46 at 1.
3
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

Here, Defendant contends that "by executing the Deposit Agreement, the
Plaintifflmowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its right to a jury trial." 7 In
response, 	Plaintiff contends that Defendant has 	failed to meet its burden 	of
establishing 	a valid 	contract because Defendant "has 	not 	produced evidence
establishing that Plaintiff ever assented to a deposit agreement containing a jury
waiver." 8 Furthermore, 	Plaintiff contends that Defendant "did not produce 	a
signature card or any document evidencing assent. " 9
In considering Defendant's motion, the Court has considered the clear
language of the deposit agreement, which states, in relevant part, "Acceptance Of
This Agreement. By signing a signature card when you open an account, by signing
any signature maintenance card or other account document for an account, by
opening or modifying 	an 	account electronically, by depositing funds 	into, or
withdrawing funds from, any account, by being named as a beneficiary or joint
owned by an existing owner of an account[.]" 10 The Court notes that it is not disputed
7 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand, Document No. 46 at 5.
8 See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Document
No. 57 at 2.
9 See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Document
No. 57 at 4.
10 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand, Document No. 46, Exhibit
A at 7 (Deposit Agreement).
4
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

that Plaintiff deposited funds into the account and further notes that the existence of
the contract being challenged by Plaintiff here is the very contract that Plaintiff is
alleging Defendant breached. 11 Based on the foregoing, and given the clear language
of the deposit agreement with respect to acceptance, the Court finds that a valid
contract exists between Plaintiff and Defendant.
The Court has further considered the language of the contract, clearly stating
that "[w]hether any controversy is arbitrated or settled by a court, you and we
voluntarily and knowingly waive any right to a jury trial with respect to such
controversy to the fullest extent allowed by law." 12 Based on the foregoing, and the
fact that Plaintiffs only rebuttal to Defendant's present motion concerns the validity
of the contract, the Court finds that a valid jury waiver was entered into by the parties
in this matter. Considering the clear guidance of the Fifth Circuit that the burden
shifts to the Plaintiff to show that it is entitled to a trial by jury following a finding
of a valid waiver, and absent any argument or evidence by the Plaintiff showing that
it is entitled to a trial by jury in light of the valid jury waiver, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs jury demand should be struck.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
11 See Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 10.
12 Deposit Agreement, Document No. 46 at 11.
5
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

ORDERS 	that 	Defendant's 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	Plaintiffs 	Jury 	Demand
(Document No. 46) 	is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs jury demand in this matter is STRUCK. The Court
further
ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Documents Redacted
and Under Seal in Connection with Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to
Strike Jury Demand (Document No. 74) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 	> day of March, 2026.
6
DAVIDHlTTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04512 Document 81 Filed 03/05/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6