Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Ramirez v. City of Texas City, No. 25-40475 (Sep. 3, 2026), in which the court concluded that a property owner raising a procedural due process claim properly invoked his right to have that claim tried by a jury.
[Disclosure: this is from our shop.]
After a fire caused extensive but repairable damage to Ramirez’s home, the city labeled the home “substandard” and demanded he do something. He submitted proposals and plans and asked for a permit, but the city said no permit until he provided a “report from an engineer.” Ramirez didn’t submit one, and for more than a year nothing happened. Eventually, the city demolished the house with no further notice to Ramirez.
He sued in a Texas court asserting takings and due process claims under both Texas law and the U.S. Constitution. His state court complaint didn’t include a jury demand (Texas procedures don’t require one at this stage). The city removed the case to federal court.
From that point on, nearly every document Ramirez filed in federal court indicated he wanted a jury trial. Big, bold letters: “JURY REQUESTED.” Check out pages 3-4 of the slip opinion for the details. All seemed well until Ramirez filed proposed jury instructions. At first, it looked like a “go” because the district court docketed the case for a jury trial.
But then the court had second thoughts. It asked the parties to brief the issue of whether Ramirez had validly demanded a jury (there didn’t seem to be an issue of whether his claim was subject to the jury right — it was — only whether he properly asked for one in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 81). The district court disagreed and held a bench trial because it concluded Ramirez including “JURY REQUESTED” on his federal court submissions was not enough.
After hearing evidence and arguments, the court held that the city demolished the home for good reason even if it did not follow the procedures it should have. Due process violation, but no-harm-no-foul. The court awarded Ramirez $1 in nominal damages.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that Ramirez did enough to demand a jury under Rule 81 (which governs cases removed from state to federal court). Because of the importance of the right to jury, courts must not lightly infer a waiver of that right, and the party is given “every reasonable presumption” that he asked for a jury.
The Fifth Circuit went through each of the (five!) factors that tell a court whether there’s a compelling reason to deny a jury demand, concluding that these weighed in favor of a jury trial, not against it. Of particular interest is the factor that asks whether the city would be prejudiced by holding a jury trial. The city said yes, we would be, because we prepped for a bench trial. Slip op. at 11. The court wasn’t buying it:
If the City simply did not notice the various signs that Ramirez sought a jury trial—including the joint discovery and case management plan, signed by the City, that contained an acknowledgement that a jury had been requested—that is the product of its own inattention rather than Ramirez’s lack of trying. Regardless, the City had two months’ notice from the district court’s scheduling the case for a jury trial to the trial itself. We must presume the City’s counsel was attentive, with a vigilant eye to the court’s schedule, and thus to the approaching scheduled jury trial.
Id. (citation omitted).
In the end, the Fifth Circuit found it essential that in his first-filed federal court document (a Certificate of Interested Parties), he pointedly noted his jury request, and did the same in “numerous filings throughout nearly a year and a half of litigation[.]” Id. at 13. If you are looking for the money quote, fast forward to page 14, where the court noted that “[e]vading complete forfeiture of a jury right does not require perfect compliance. Solicitude for the Seventh Amendment requires more before the right is lost.” Couldn’t have said it better.
Remanded for jury trial.
Recent Comments