(c) Advisory Jury; Jury Trial by Consent. — In an action not triable of right

by a jury, the court, on motion or on its own: (1) may try any issue with an advisory jury; or (2) may, with the parties’ consent, try any issue by a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if a jury trial had been a matter of right, unless the action is against the State of Wyoming when a statute provides for a nonjury trial. History: Added February 2, 2017, effective March 1, 2017; amended October 6, 2020, effective De- cember 7, 2020. Source. — This rule is similar to Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cross references. — As to voir dire, see Rule 701, D. Ct. As to interrogating jurors after trial, see Rule 701, D. Ct. Court may limit issues for jury. — A court acting either upon motion of one of the parties or upon its own initiative, may order a case transferred from the jury calendar to the court calendar or may limit the issues to be tried by the jury if it finds no jury trial right exists as to some or all of the issues. True v. Hi-Plains Elevator Mach., 577 P.2d 991, 1978 Wyo. LEXIS 281 (Wyo. 1978). Federal courts have been extremely re- luctant to use their discretionary power under Rule 39(b), F.R.C.P., often pointing out that discretion should be exercised only under an extraordinary showing. Patterson v. Maher, 450 P.2d 1005, 1969 Wyo. LEXIS 118 (Wyo. 1969). Standards for pro se litigants. — Pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural rules and standards as are attorneys, and trial court did not abuse its discretion pursuant to subdivision (b) when it refused to relieve client in an action against his attorney for partial refund of retainer fee from its waiver of the right to a jury trial when the sole reason for urging the court to invoke its Rule 39(b) discre- tion was that client was “unfamiliar” with the requirements of W.R.C.P. 38. Armstrong v. Pick- ett, 865 P.2d 49, 1993 Wyo. LEXIS 177 (Wyo. 1993), reh’g denied, 1994 Wyo. LEXIS 8 (Wyo. Jan. 12, 1994). Pro se litigant failing to deposit fee and serve demand properly denied jury trial. — There is no abuse when, in the exercise of his discretion, a judge refuses to give a pro se litigant a jury trial when the reason for urging the exercise of favorable judicial discretion is that the litigant failed to deposit a jury fee and failed to serve his jury demand upon the oppos- ing party for the reason that he was unfamiliar with the requirements in these respects. LP v. Natrona County Dep’t of Pub. Assistance & Social Servs., 679 P.2d 976 (Wyo. 1984). Waiver. — District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s request for a jury trial because the mother made a voluntary and knowing waiver; the mother had opportu- nities to make a motion after counsel was appointed, and she discussed the issue with her attorney and chose not to request a jury trial. LCB v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 2023 WY 23, 525 P.3d 1030, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 24 (Wyo. 2023). Failure arguments not grounds for reversal. — The failure of the court reporter to report the arguments of coun- sel on the jury-demand motion is not alone grounds for reversal if there were something in those proceedings which appellants deemed crucial to their case — they had available to them former Rule 4.03 (now see Rule 3.03), W.R.A.P., designed to reconstruct unreported proceedings into written form for appellate ex- amination. Scherling v. Kilgore, 599 P.2d 1352, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 452 (Wyo. 1979). report to Review. — Appellant did not sustain her burden of establishing an abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying the motion for jury trial, where the court was provided with no transcript of the hearing on the motion. Stroup v. Oedekoven, 995 P.2d 125, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 205 (Wyo. 1999). Order denying a mother’s motion for a jury trial was not a final appealable order because it did not affect the mother’s parental rights or deprive her of due process and could not be construed to have affected a substantial right; the order affected only the mother’s statutory and waivable right to a jury trial. LCB v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 2023 WY 23, 525 P.3d 1030, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 24 (Wyo. 2023). District court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s request for a jury trial be- cause he failed to offer a reason to the district court for his failure to timely serve his jury demand on defendant, other than his apparent misunderstanding that the failure of the Wyo. R. Civ. P. 19 defendants to answer extended his time under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 38. Traylor v. Kraft, 2024 WY 74, 552 P.3d 351, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 75 (Wyo. 2024).