Brian A. Gualazzi

The plaintiff moved for leave to strike the jury notice, to amend her claim to bring it within the simplified procedure, and to have the action tried pursuant to the simplified procedure.

The defendant opposed the relief.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the grounds for the request pre-existed the filing of the trial record, meaning there was no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to warrant granting leave.

Furthermore, the court held that striking the jury notice would deprive the defendant of a substantive statutory right without providing a significant benefit to the plaintiff, as trial delays would likely occur regardless of the trial format.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to strike the jury notice, thereby transferring the action to the Simplified Procedure track under Rule 76.

The defendants opposed, citing delay and potential prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the increased monetary threshold for Simplified Procedure and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

The court further found that striking the jury notice and proceeding under Simplified Procedure was in the best interests of justice, promoting proportionality, accessibility, and expeditious resolution, without causing functional disadvantage to the defendants.