Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
19. Is the court likely to strike the jury demand?
The representatives' claim is based on a wrongful death action that seeks money damages. The representatives demanded a jury trial. The foreign manufacturer moved to strike the representatives' jury demand.
Representatives of estates of individuals who died in an airplane crash in State A filed suit in federal court against the foreign manufacturer of the aircraft that crashed. Foreign manufacturers may only be sued in federal court as a result of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act («FSIA»), which grants federal jurisdiction over foreign instrumentalities when a foreign state engages in commercial activity. Prior to FSIA, foreign instrumentalities were not suable at common law.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial requires that claims be:
(i) legal in nature; AND
(ii) asserted against the type of defendant that was suable at common law in 1791.
Before the merger of law and equity, it was usually simple to determine whether a cause of action was at common law for purposes of the Seventh Amendment. United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which relies on English common law to determine whether the right to a jury trial in a civil suit is necessary. The Amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in other types of cases, including maritime law, lawsuits against the government itself, or for many parts of patent claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 38(a) provides that the right to a trial by jury as declared in the Seventh Amendment is preserved by the party who demands it. However, a party who wishes for a jury trial on a particular issue must file a demand within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to that issue.
C is correct. As the facts here state, foreign instrumentalities were not suable at common law, and only upon the passage of FSIA did this change. Thus, the representatives' claims do not have the right to demand a jury trial because, although the claim is legal in nature, the assertion is not against the type of defendant that was suable at common law in 1791.
A is incorrect. Although the representatives' claims exemplify the types of claims tried by juries, this does not, in and of itself, make the representatives' wrongful death claim determinative of their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
The determination of whether the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial also turns on whether the claim or relief was available in 1791. Because foreign instrumentalities were not the type of defendant that was suable at common law, the representatives' claim was not available in 1791, so there is no right to a jury trial.
B is incorrect. This choice misstates the law. Claims in equity would allow for the jury demand to be stricken, not granted. Nevertheless, that is not a relevant rule in this case, where the representatives' claim is legal in nature. As stated above, because the foreign manufacturer was not a suable defendant at common law in 1791, the jury demand should be stricken.
D is incorrect. This choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. Whether providing a Seventh Amendment jury would violate FSIA is not determinative of the representatives' right to a jury trial. As explained above, the determination turns on whether the claims are legal and may be asserted against the type of defendant that was suable at common law in 1791.