Апелляционный суд Мичигана отменил решение о суде присяжных из-за ошибки в оплате пошлины

Law360 (July 15, 2026, 8:45 PM EDT) -- The Michigan Court of Appeals said in a published opinion that a trial court should not have denied a jury trial in a civil case where, two years into proceedings, it was discovered that the plaintiff never paid the fee required by Michigan statute to have a jury trial. While both parties had initially requested a jury trial, the plaintiff withdrew the request when the missed fee was raised. A three-judge panel on Tuesday vacated a trial court decision denying a jury trial, saying the court took the wrong approach, and remanded the case for further proceedings. "It is well-established that a trial court has discretion to empanel a jury even in cases where the parties did not demand it in the manner prescribed by law," the panel said. The civil case between plaintiff Nickgrace Inc., doing business as University Office Technologies Inc., and defendants Aaron Gurgul, Dan Heimler and Watchdog Cyber LLC proceeded for approximately two years as if there were going to be a trial. At that point, the plaintiff told the court that it had not paid the jury fee required by Michigan statute and filed a motion to proceed without a jury. The defendants objected and paid the jury fee, but the trial court determined that it did not have discretion to empanel a jury and granted the plaintiff's motion for a bench trial. The panel said in its opinion that trial judges do have the discretion to empanel a jury, "even if the parties technically waived that right through procedural errors." The defendants argued in their appeal that the plaintiff should not have been allowed to withdraw its request for a jury trial because the fact that it did not pay the jury fee meant it had never actually requested a jury trial. The court agreed. The panel disagreed with the defendants' claims that their right to a jury trial was preserved because they filed a document stating that they were relying on the plaintiff's jury demand and that they solidified their right to a jury trial by filing their own separate demand. Because the plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by not paying the jury fee and because the defendants did not pay their jury fee at the time the written demand for a jury trial was filed, neither party, the panel wrote, preserved their right to a jury trial. The trial court erred in its decision to proceed with a bench trial, the panel went on to say, because its belief that it lacked discretion to empanel a jury was "erroneous." The panel said there are several things for the trial court to consider on remand: the fact that either party could have contacted the court clerk to confirm that the jury fee had been paid; that the defendants made an independent demand for a jury and did pay the jury fee, albeit not timely; and any other facts the trial court finds relevant to determining if a jury should be empaneled. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Judges Michael J. Kelly, Sima G. Patel and Daniel S. Korobkin sat on the panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals. The plaintiff is represented by James F. Hermon and Brett M. Gelbord of Dykema Gossett PLLC. The defendants are represented by Ryan J. Glavin and Patrick Foley of John Foley PC. The case is Nickgrace Inc. v. Aaron Gurgul, Dan Heimler, and Watchdog Cyber LLC, case number 376127, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.  --Editing by Linda Voorhis. For a reprint of this article, please contact [email protected].