David Raymond v. International Business MacHines Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court acted “well within its discretion” under Pioneer in excusing an inadvertently late jury demand when there was no bad faith or prejudice to any party
• noting that Rule 6 is applicable to most but not all time requirements within the Rules of Civil Procedure
• affirming decision to grant a late jury demand where the untimeliness was due to mere inadvertence
• listing equitable factors to consider in determining if a party has demonstrated excusable neglect
• without a showing beyond mere inadvertence, “it would have been error for the district court to have granted the Rule 39(b) motion”
• “[M]ere inadvertence, without more, can in some circumstances be enough to constitute ‘excusable neglect’ justifying relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).