Romero-Valdez v. Parnall Law Firm, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
____________________
DOMINIQUE ROMERO-VALDEZ,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF
PARNALL LAW FIRM, LLC,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TWELVE-PERSON JURY
This matter comes before the Court on Parnall Law Firm, LLC’s (“Parnall”) Motion for
Twelve-Person Jury, filed November 18, 2025 (Doc. 143). Parnall removed this case to federal
court on December 6, 2023. Doc. 1. It filed its answer and a counterclaim against Ms. Romero-
Valdez on December 13, 2023, and Ms. Romero-Valdez answered Parnall’s counterclaim on
January 3, 2024. Docs. 7, 10. On February 6, 2024, Ms. Romero-Valdez filed a motion to file an
untimely jury demand, which the Court exercised its discretion to grant on September 23, 2024.
Docs. 28, 38. Ms. Romero-Valdez filed her demand for a jury of six within the new deadline on
September 25, 2024. Doc. 41. Now, well over a year after Ms. Romero-Valdez filed this jury
demand seeking six jurors, and with a jury trial set for February 2–6, 2026, Parnall requests a
jury of “at least twelve (12) but no less than eight (8) members.” Doc. 143 at 1–2.1
Parnall gives no explanation for its belated motion. It argues that expanding the jury from
six to twelve (or eight, nine, ten, or eleven) will not “significantly alter the course of litigation or
upend trial.” Doc. 146 at 1. It “cites the Court’s exercise of discretion . . . to grant Plaintiff’s late
1 Parnall uses this phrasing, “at least twelve,” in both its motion, Doc. 143, and its reply, Doc. 146.
The Court interprets Parnall’s request as one for a jury of preferably twelve but at least eight
members. Juries may not have more than twelve members. FED. R. CIV. P. 48(a).
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 174 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
jury demand, and is requesting that the Court similarly exercise its discretion in considering
Defendant’s request[.]” Id. at 1–2.
The Court finds Parnall’s belated request meaningfully different from Ms. Romero-
Valdez’s. The Tenth Circuit has held that “absent strong and compelling reasons to the contrary, a
district court should exercise its discretion under Rule 39(b) and grant a jury trial” due to the
nature of a jury trial as a fundamental right. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d
408, 409 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Doc. 38 at 2. Ms. Romero-Valdez’s delay in filing a jury
demand was due to repeated clerical errors, but she had put Parnall on notice that she sought a
jury trial, and her motion was filed before discovery had commenced. Doc. 38 at 3. In contrast,
Parnall’s request—for twelve jurors rather than six—does not implicate a fundamental right
because a jury of six is permissible in civil trials. FED. R. CIV. P. 48(a). Parnall gives no
explanation for its delay, nor does the briefing suggest that Ms. Romero-Valdez was on notice
that such a request might be forthcoming. Parnall’s motion was filed after the close of discovery,
and nearly two months after briefing was complete on summary judgment motions. See Doc. 78
(extending discovery deadline to May 30, 2025); Docs. 135–142 (notices of briefing complete
filed between September 24 and September 26, 2025); Doc. 143 (Parnall’s motion filed
November 18, 2025). In short, the factors that led the Court to exercise its discretion and allow
Ms. Romero-Valdez to file an untimely jury demand are not present for Parnall’s motion.
Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion (Doc. 143).
It is so ordered.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 174 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2