Can parties waive their right to a jury trial through special master proceedings? Failor v. MegaDyne Medical Products Explained

In Failor v. MegaDyne Medical Products, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether parties can waive their constitutional right to a jury trial through their conduct in civil litigation, particularly when requesting appointment of a special master.

Background and Facts

Kenneth Failor and Premium Plastics sued MegaDyne Medical Products for unpaid amounts under manufacturing agreements for coating medical instruments. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, accounting, and negligent misrepresentation. Due to the complexity of determining accurate payment amounts, plaintiffs moved for appointment of a special master to review MegaDyne’s records. The parties agreed to the appointment, and plaintiffs prepared the order of reference. After the special master found that MegaDyne had actually overpaid the plaintiffs, MegaDyne moved to strike the jury demand.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether the trial court properly struck plaintiffs’ jury demand, (2) whether the special master’s procedures were proper, and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend after ten years of litigation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. First, the court found that despite being labeled as legal claims, the plaintiffs’ causes of action were essentially requests for an equitable accounting. The court noted that “Utah courts look to the nature of the action and not the pleading labels chosen.” Additionally, the court found that plaintiffs had waived their jury trial rights by preparing an order of reference that incorporated language from Rule 53(e)(2), which governs non-jury actions, and by failing to object to the bench trial setting until after the special master’s report was filed.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the importance of careful drafting when requesting special masters. Practitioners should be aware that incorporating procedural rules governing non-jury actions into orders of reference may constitute a waiver of jury trial rights. The court also reaffirmed that motions to amend filed several years into litigation face significant hurdles, particularly when filed a decade after the original complaint. Finally, the decision reinforces that courts will look beyond pleading labels to determine the true nature of claims when assessing whether they sound in law or equity.