Document: 359 U.S. 500 79 S.Ct. 948 3 L.Ed.2d 988 BEACON THEATERS, INC., Petitioner,v.The Hon. Harry C. WESTOVER, Judge of the United States District Court Southern California, Central Division, et al. No. 45. Argued Dec. 10, 1958. Decided May 25, 1959. Mr. Jack Corinblit, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Frank R. Johnston, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 eti tioner, Beacon Theatres, Inc., sought by mandamus to require a district judge in California vacate certain orders alleged deprive it jury trial issues arising suit brought against Fox West Coast Inc. The Appeals Ninth Circuit refused writ, holding that had acted within his proper discretion denying petitioner's request jury. 252 F.2d 864. We granted certiorari, 356 956, 78 996, 2 1064, because 'Maintenance as fact-finding body is such importance and occupies so firm place our history jurisprudence any seeming curtailment right should be scrutinized with utmost care.' Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 474, 486, 55 296, 301, L.Ed. 603. asked declaratory relief alleging controversy under Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, U.S.C.A. Clayton 38 731, § 15, which authorizes suits treble damages Act violators. According complaint operates movie theatre San Bernardino, has long been exhibiting films contracts distributors. These grant if exclusive show 'first run' pictures 'San Bernardino competitive area' provide 'clearance'—a period time during no other can exhibit same pictures. After building drive-in about 11 miles from notified considered barring simultaneous exhibitions first-run two theatres overt acts violation antitrust laws.1 Fox's this notification, together threats damage its distributors, gave rise 'duress coercion' deprived valuable property right, negotiate contracts. Unless was restrained, continued, irreparable harm would result. Accordingly, while pleading styled 'Complaint Declaratory Relief,' prayed both declaration clearance between reasonable not laws, an injunction, pending final resolution litigation, prevent instituting action laws distributors out complaint.2 filed answer, counterclaim Fox, cross-claim exhibitor who intervened. denied asserted there substantial competition theatres, clearances were therefore unreasonable, conspiracy existed manipulate restrain trade monopolize laws. Treble asked. demanded factul i ssues case provided Federal Rule Civil Procedure 38(b), 28 Court, however, viewed raised including question essentially equitable. Acting purported authority Rules 42(b) 57, directed these tried court before determination validity charges violations made cross-claim.3 A common issue counterclaim, reasonableness depended, part, on existence theatres. Thus effect could be, believed, 'to limit opportunity fully try every bearing upon suit,' might 'operate either way res judicata or collateral estoppel conclude parties respect thereto at subsequent claim.' page 874. 4 Court's finding Complaint Relief presented basically equitable draws support Judgment 2201, 2202, 2202; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 57. See also 48 955, (1940 ed.) 400. That statute, allowing prospective defendants sue establish their nonliability, specifically preserves parties.4 It follows have entitled cannot merely took advantage availability first. Since applies is, fact, essential part congressional plan making rather than monopoly rule trade, see Fleitmann Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 27, 29, 36 233, 234, 60 505, questions. 5 Nevertheless upset order judge. held whether judged read whole. In addition seeking judgment, said, valid plea injunctive relief, thus stating claim traditionally cognizable equity. party maintain equity said court, may all determined without regardless legal rights are involved. then rejected argument available only when remedies inadequate, rendered unnecessary filing necessary relief. Relying American Life Ins. Co. Stewart, 300 203 21 5, 57 377, 380, 81 605, decided enactment Procedure, invoked principle sitting retain jurisdiction even though later remedy became available. instances enjoin lawsuit allow whole dispute one court.5 Reasoning analogy, abuse judge, acting 42(b), cause first might, through estoppel, full effectively stopped injunction.6 6 takes stated granted. As initially lawsuits petitioner causing business relationships. prayer mention but litigation enjoined beginning complaint. Evidently did state good construed include injunction lawsuits. This liberal construction line 8 Procedure. Conley Gibson, 355 41, 47—48, 99, 102—103, 80. But fact does solve problem. Assuming pleadings assuming additionally kind harassment multiplicity justified take settle suit,7 we nevertheless that, neither justify controversy. 7 basis federal courts always inadequacy remedies.8 At least much required using claims origins ahead ones, since claims. And immaterial, judging properly employed,tha t passed, equity, exercising separate law, were, some cass, allowed actions involving action, providing jury, protect plaintiff fair orderly adjudication See, e.g., New York Lie Seymour, Cir., 45 47, 73 A.L.R. 1523. Under circumstances quite naturally deemed inadequate. Inadequacy practical terms, however. today must determined, precedents discarded procedures, light now Rules.9 Viewed manner, use cross-claim, well justified. causes action. Civ.Proc., 18. defenses, legal, answer Beacon's counterclaim. On showing, suits, actually brought, being case, temporarily outcome litigation. Whatever permanent decision could, course, given after renders verdict. settled giving issue. Cf. Ring Spina, 166 546. By contrast, below granting additional protection unless avoidance such, compel split trying jury.10 Such result, involves postponement subordination own compelled bring,11 permissible. 9 Our consistent substantia pr ocedural reform retaining distinction nonjury leaving substantive unchanged.12 inadequate,13 expansion adequate necessarily affects scope Thus, justification equity's deciding once obtains jurisdiction, refusing dismiss subsequently becomes available, re-evaluated joinder provisions resolved civil action.14 Similarly need for, therefore, Bills Peace, Quia Timet Injunction reconsidered view provision Rules.15 accord spirit '(t)he declared Seventh Amendment Constitution statute shall preserved * inviolate.'16 10 If cases where judgment respects affording cause, will constitutional one, similar requirement protects trials court,17 very narrowly limited must, wherever possible, exercised preserve trial. Scott Neely, 140 106, 109—110, 712, 714, 35 358: 'In (jury) dispensed with, except assent it; nor impaired blending claim, demand aid pendency.'18 long-standing dictates most imperative circumstances, flexible procedures anticipate,19 lost prior Leimer Woods, 196 828, 833—836. shown, far case. Respondent All Writs 1651, 1651. differences types cases, think improperly settled.20 12 reversed. 13 Reversed. 14 FRANKFURTER consideration STEWART, whom HARLAN WHITTAKER concur, dissenting. 16 There doubt litigant writ clear statutory denial here. simply inherent discretion, explicitly confirmed schedule advance law. Even not, I think, attacked extraordinary mandamus.1 event apparent 17 brief, wrongfully interfered compete freely licensing exhibition area. law irreparably harmed defendant restrained continuing interfere—by coercion litigation—with plaintiff's lawful 18 found complaint, although inartistically drawn, contained allegations entitling relief.2 accepted prevailing today. answered general denial, traditional principles triable proceeding Instead just puting affirmatively broad among owners area refrain competing themselves, discriminate film licenses. Based allegations, amount $300,000. Clearly What Beacon, original 19 Upon motion ordered separately defendant's counter-claim damages. court's order, carefully conformity specific Procedure.3 Yet rescind it. 20 factual damages, agree first.4 matter great moment what present tried. disturbing process arrives decision—a appears disregard historic relationship I. suggests 'the equity.' Does mean say mere furnish 'an law' power act? novel reasoning implied opinion. 'expand' new remedy, equitable, areas When sought, depends basic context presented. Moore's Practice (2d 38.29, 57.30; Borchard, Judgments ed.), 399—404. cancellation written instrument, 'remedy law.'5 If, hand, arise course remains unimpaired, judgment.6 22 declaring specified manner dealings exhibitors render liable 'juxtaposition parties' trial.7 recognizes, exclusively cognizance, going beyond defense allegedly unlawful interference relationships—protection seems recognize afforded unsupplemented operate confer II. 23 hold suggest never determine 'legal rights.' For indeed precisely Chancellor, jurisdictio invoked, often called decide. Issues rarely 'legal' 'equitable.' they arise. examples cited Chief Pope thorough illustrative: '* (I)n possession real quiet title, remove cloud title. performance contract, making, terms contract trespass property. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, 5th ed., 138—221, 221a, 221b, 221d, 250.' 864, 24 Though apparently disputing principles, holds, apart reliance acquired otherwise court. Support position 'in *' employed sense limitation exercise recognition Instead, possible competition, primarily marked departure long-settled principles. 25 established 'that existing bill destroyed become thereafter.'8 203, 215, 605. Dawson Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse 255 288, 41 272, 275, 65 638. parties, both. words Cardozo, writing unanimous supra: 'A control over docket. sound abeyance abide another, especially same. respondents suspend till disposed of, justice done pursuing exceptional necessity. many weighed, as, instance, condition calendar, insurer precipitate adversaries dilatory, factors. end, benefit hardship set off, other, balance ascertained.' 215—216, 380.9 III. 27 sweeps away 'precedents procedures.' somehow worked 'expansion remedies' oust Courts them dockets. obviously whit.10 Like inviolate historically must.11 They do create 'does exist statutes States.' 39(a). compulsory Rules, 13(a), waived rights.12 Compare Mills Surety 260 360, 43 149, 67 306. transformed into law.13 Bendix Aviation Corp. Glass, D.C., F.Supp. 645. 29 make proceeding, expressly affirm heard. 42(b). Certainly intended undermine structure jurisprudence, developed centuries recognized Constitution.14 30 reasons petition dismissed. violated decrees issued Paramount Pictures, 66 323; 70 53, affirmed reversed 334 131, 68 915, 92 1260, proceedings 85 881. limits each competition. Neither those decrees. Their relevance, significant precedents. Other prayers aside 'such further deems proper' added nothing material out. reads: 'The furtherance convenience avoid prejudice counter-claim, third-party number claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, issues.' reads part: speedy hearing calendar.' (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Illinois Timms Howard, 108 497; Hargrove Cent. 125 225; Johnson Fidelity Casualty 238 322. 38, 39. Enelow 379, 310, 440, City Morgantown, W. Va. Royal 337 254, 69 1067, 93 1347; Peake Lincoln Nat. 303. Ettelson Metropolitan 317 188, 192, 63 163, 164, 87 176, enabling ones injunctions. 1347, status injunctions purposes appealability. imply came reviewed examined less strictly 258, 1069. Smyth Ames, 169 466, 515, 418, 42 819; Detroit Citizens' 184 368, 378—382, 410, 414—416, 46 592; cf. Matthews Rodgers, 284 521, 52 217, 76 447. E.g., State Pennsylvania Wheeling Belmont Bridge How. 518, 561, 249; Parker Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton Woollen Black 545, 551, 333; 440. Cook, Cases (4th 18; Jurisprudence (5th 1370; Moore, Practice, 154—158; Morris, Jury Trial Fusion Law Equity, Tex.L.Rev. 427, 441—443. Maryland Theater Brennan, 180 Md. 389, A.2d 911; Hasselbring Koepke, 263 Mich. 248 N.W. 869, 1170. 182, 183. Significantly itself relied procedural changes valid, relying 80, emphasized policies Rules. turns restraint facts, see, Standard Oil Jersey States, 221 60, 31 502, 619, particularly undesirable relevant considerations factfinder another. 13(a). 2072, 2072; 39(a), Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 382, note 26, 606, 614, 741; Yellow Cab 340 543, 555-556, 71 399, 407, 95 523. 1163, derived Sept. 24, 1789, 16, 82. provision, antedates Amendment, discussed 32. Hipp Town Babin, 271, 277—278, 633; Insurance Bailey, Wall. 616, 620—621, 501; Grand Chute Winegar, 373, 174; Buzard Houston, 119 347, 351—352, 249, 251—252, 451. Prudential America Saxe, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 134 31—34; 251 3/4, 264(b); 32; id., 209—211. also, Note, Joinder Jurisdiction Avoidance Multiplicity Suits, Md.L.Rev. 88. Of depend 'equitable' adequacy purely academic 38(a). delegating Supreme responsibility drawing up rules, Congress that: 'Such rules abridge, enlarge modify Constitution.' 2072. Suits value exceed twenty dollars, preserved, reexamined according law.' Hurwitz Hurwitz, 66, 136 796, 798—799, 148 226; Genesee Fitzhugh, 443, 459—460, 1058. Parsons Bedford, Pet. 433, 446, 732. Galloway 319 372, 1077, 1458. Id., 396, 1090 (dissenting opinion). example 546, 550. Ex parte Simons, 247 231, 239—240, 497, 498, 62 1094; Peterson, 253 300, 305—306, 40 544—545, 64 919; Bereslavsky Caffey, 161 499; Canister Leahy, 191 255; Boyd, 156, 160—161. Bruckman Hollzer, 152 730. re Chappell 201 343. La Buy Howes Leather 352 309, 290. 843. De Groot Peters, 124 Cal. 406, P. 209; Grape Control Bd. Corp., Cal.App.2d 242, 244, P.2d 846. Kessler Eldred, 206 285, 611, 51 1065; International News Service Associated Press, 236, 39 68, 71, 211; Truax Raich, 239 33, 7, 9, 131. provides: '(b) Separate Trials. Note Advisory Committee states 'When others sequence tried.' language draft deleted adequately *.' (2d. 39.12, n. 8. provides, inter alia, altogether stage respondent ingeniously argues determinative little Theatre Petitioner's substantially other. cross-defendants co-conspirators therein named conspired Absent conspiracy, licensed single run picture drive-in, substnti al area, Petitioner fail prove meaningless. hand success proving drivein, non-existence exculpate none wrongdoers, absence contended difficulty injury business.' Farm Auto. Mossey, 195 56, 60; Connecticut General Candimat 83 1. Dickinson Accident F. L. Assur. 147 396; Pacific Indemnity McDonald, 107 131 208. 57.31(2). 'Transposition perhaps more accurate description. typical uses procedure seek nonliability defendant. suggestion 'This controversy' plainly inconsistent applied. Beedle Bennett, 122 1090, 1074; Clark Wooster, 332, 392. arguable factually Stewart footnote 7. p. 158. Congressional authorization 'Said enlarge, litigant.' 1064. U.S.Const., Amend. VII. 39, permissive waiver Determination normally dependent character 404. situations, seeks invalidity non-infringement patent, nature entire 38.29. judicial Power extend Cases, Equity. Art. III, 2.

Category: 0