plaintiff brings himself under the purview of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). Rule 9(h) effectively precludes trial by jury for cases in which the court has jurisdiction through admiralty or some other means and the plaintiff identifies the claim as one brought in admiralty, and those in which the court’s exclusive jurisdiction is in admiralty. Moreover, Rule 38(e) states “These rules shall not be construed to create a right to trial by jury of the issues in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(e). Under Meaige and Federal Rules 9(h) and 38(e), the Court concludes that, by the terms of the Complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial. See Sanderlin v. Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., 281 F.Supp. 1015, 1016 (E.D.Va.1968) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to strike the
holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts holding that under rule 38e there is no right to a trial by jury if plaintiff chooses to identify his claim as admiralty or maritime as permitted by rule 9h holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures holding that a party need not make a specific reference to rule 9h to fall under admiralty jurisdiction holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored