5. How should the court rule on the parties' motions?

The Seventh Amendment provides that in suits at common law, the right of a trial by jury shall be guaranteed. This provision only applies to federal trials and has never been applicable to state trials.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 38(a) provides that the right of a trial by jury as declared in the Seventh Amendment is preserved for the parties. 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.

Importantly, the Seventh Amendment only applies to «suits at common law.» In application, this means that if the suit would have been considered at common law in 1791, there will be a right to a jury trial. Before the merger of law and equity, it was usually simple to determine whether a cause of action was at common law. United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the Amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The Amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims.

A case will be tried without a jury if one of the two following conditions exist: (i) no right to a jury trial exists; or (ii) all parties have waived the right to a jury trial. If there is no jury, the trial judge serves as both the finder of fact and the decider of law.

FRCP 52 requires the trial court to find the facts specially and to state the conclusions of law separately. In practice, this means the judge must set forth the facts as he finds them with some particularity and, in a separate section, state the law which he believes disposes of the case.

A is correct. The issue here is two-fold: (i) how should the court rule on the opposing parties' motions regarding the order of the trials; and (ii) which of the claims should be tried by a jury? The right to a jury trial is preserved by the Seventh Amendment for all suits of common law where the amount in controversy exceeds $20. The determination of which claims are available at law or equity, historically, turns on what claims were available in equity in 1791. If legal and equitable claims arising out of the same common facts are joined, the legal claim should be tried first by the jury and then the equitable claim to the court. In this case, there is a legal claim, the team's damages claim, and an equitable claim, the city's injunction. The court should, therefore, first hold a jury trial of the team's counterclaim and then a nonjury trial of the city's claim.

B is incorrect. This is the incorrect characterization of how lawsuits containing mixed legal and equitable claims are «split.» As explained above, if legal and equitable claims are joined, the legal claim should be tried first to a jury. The jury's findings on fact issues will bind the court in the equitable claim.

C is incorrect. The Supreme Court has demonstrated a preference for jury trials in situations where lawsuits contain a mix of legal and equitable claims. The legal claim should first be tried by a jury, then any remaining issues in the equitable claim will be tried in a nonjury trial. Additionally, the legal claims tried by a jury will bind the judge when he is deciding the remaining equitable claim.

D is incorrect. As explained above, when federal courts are handling a case with mixed legal and equitable claims, a jury will deliberate on the legal issue first, and that finding of fact will bind the judge when he evaluates the equitable claim. The legal claim should first be tried by a jury. The jury's finding of fact on the legal issue will bind the court later when it properly adjudicates the equitable claim.