Taxing Matters
Overtaxed Member
Yes. If either side wants a jury then the trial will be by jury. Understand that in the federal system in suits at common law (which would include a contract case) where the amount in controversy is $20 or more the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. So whether you like it or not, if the defendant wants a jury trial in an ordinary civil suit in federal court the trial will be by jury. The only way to change that rule is to change the Consitution itself, which as you likely know is extremely difficult to do. This constitutional right to a jury trial is also reflected in FRCP 38 and 39.
A change of venue can only be made to another district in which the case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). What this means is that generally change of venue is something that defendants seek because the plaintiff had the option to bring the action in any district where the case could be brought and presumeably would have chosen the one he or she thought was best. Here, I assume that if you could have brought the suit in some other district you would have as you knew this issue from the start. That suggests to me that the district in which you brought the lawsuit was the only one where it could be brought. If that's true, then you won't get a change of venue.
The fact that a party to a case is famous does not preclude a trial being held in a court located where the person is well known. It happens with some regularity. And it is possible to get a jury that can decide the case reasonably objectively. You mention the OJ case as one example of the bias you fear, but that case actually proves that they can decide things objectively. The criminal case required the state to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that the prosecution made a number of mistakes in that case which opened the door for reasonable doubt, of which OJ's lawyers took full advantage. The result in that case was not a jury blinded by the fame of OJ but rather a prosecution team that did not match up well with the stellar attorneys OJ had. But in the civil case against OJ, OJ lost. The standard of proof required was much less, preponderance of the evidence (the same standard that will apply in your case) and the plaintiffs learned from the prosecutor's mistakes and did not repeat them. That second jury was no less aware of the fame of OJ than the first. Yet it was able to render a verdict against him nevertheless.
The more common reason that celebrities and wealthy people seem to do better than others in court is not that the juries are biased in their favor as a result of the fame (though in some cases that might happen) but rather that the rich and famous can pay for outstanding legal representation. If the company you are suing has an attorney and you don't, that defendant will have a significant advantage that has nothing to do with the fame of the person involved with that company.
I've litigated against pro se parties in federal courts and they do not generally fare well. It has nothing to do with how smart they are but rather simply lack of knowledge of the applicable rules and experience. For some reason a lot of people seem to think that litigation is somehow easy and that anyone who is smart can do it. Perhaps TV and movies make it seem that way. It takes more than just having a logical argument (though that is certainly important). You have to know and follow the rules too.