United States Aviation Underwriters Inc., a New York corporation, individually and on behalf of United States Aircraft Insurance Group v. Aeroscope Iron, LLC, a California limited liability company; and Charles Brandes, a California resident
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly requested that the court order a bench trial on an equitable recission claim to precede a jury trial on a breach of contract claim. The court denied the request for a specific order at this time and instead ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing by January 9, 2026, explaining the legal grounds for such a sequence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering supplemental briefing regarding the sequence of trials“Therefore, the Parties are ORDERED to submit supplemental briefing concerning the grounds for trying the equitable recission claim to the bench before the legal claims are tried to the jury.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the parties' joint request lacked the necessary legal authority to justify deviating from the standard rule that legal claims must be tried before equitable claims to preserve the right to a jury trial. By requiring supplemental briefing, the court ensures that any deviation is based on a proper legal foundation (such as the claims being 'entirely independent') rather than mere party preference. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent from Dollar Systems to the parties' request. The court accurately notes that the parties failed to provide legal authority for their proposed sequence and correctly identifies the general rule that legal claims take precedence over equitable ones to preserve jury rights. The order to brief is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve the issue.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES AVIATION Case No.: 21-CV-758 JLS (BLM) UNDERWRITERS INC., a New York 11 corporation, individually and on behalf of ORDER REQUESTING 12 United States Aircraft Insurance Group, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC, a California limited liability company; and CHARLES 16 BRANDES, a California resident, 17 Defendants. 18 AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC; and 19 CHARLES BRANDES, 20 Counterclaimants, 21 v. 22 UNITED STATES AVIATION 23 UNDERWRITERS INC., individually and on behalf of United States Aircraft 24 Insurance Group; ACE AMERICAN 25 INSURANCE COMPANY; and NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE 26 INSURANCE COMPANY, 27 Counter-defendants. 28 1 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Supplemental Briefing (“Supp. Brief,” ECF 2 No. 179) in response to the Court’s Order requesting the Parties to confer regarding pretrial 3 issues (“Order,” ECF No. 176). In the Supplemental Briefing, the Parties request “that the 4 equitable recission claim be tried to the bench first, to be immediately followed by a jury 5 trial on the breach of contract claim rather than vice versa.” Supp. Brief at 3. However, 6 the Parties do not present the Court with any legal authority discussing the Court’s 7 authority to do so. See generally Supp. Brief. 8 “The Supreme Court has held that ‘where equitable and legal claims are joined in 9 the same action, there is a right to jury trial on the legal claims which must not be infringed 10 either by trying the legal issues as incidental to the equitable ones or by a court trial of a 11 common issue existing between the claims.’” Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Sys., Inc., 12 890 F.2d 165, 170 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 537–38 13 (1970)). “Thus, where there are issues common to both the equitable and legal claims, ‘the 14 legal claims involved in the action must be determined prior to any final court 15 determination of [the] equitable claims.’” Id. (quoting Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 16 U.S. 469, 479 (1962)). “When legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the 17 trial judge only has limited discretion in determining the sequence of the trial and ‘that 18 discretion . . . must, whenever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.’” Id. (quoting 19 Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959)). “Under only the most 20 imperative circumstances . . . can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior 21 determination of equitable claims.” Id. However, “[w]here the ‘legal and equitable claims 22 asserted in a single action are entirely independent, the order of trial is immaterial, and may 23 be left in the discretion of the court.’” Id. at 171 (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 24 Practice and Procedure § 2305, at 35 (1971)). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Therefore, the Parties are ORDERED to submit supplemental briefing concerning 2 || the grounds for trying the equitable recission claim to the bench before the legal claims are 3 || tried to the jury. This briefing must be filed by January 9, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 5, 2026 . □ 6 ja cls Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28