Opinion ID: 692072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Protection of the Right to a Jury By Mandamus

Text: 10 American argues that, as a threshold matter, Lockwood has failed to make the extraordinary showing required for mandamus. American maintains that we need not address Lockwood's Seventh Amendment claim at this time, asserting that the error of which Lockwood complains, if it occurred at all, can simply be reviewed on appeal after the entry of a final judgment in the case. While we must begin, as American suggests, with the familiar principle that the remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations, Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S.Ct. 188, 190, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980), we can pay no less heed to the Supreme Court's Seventh Amendment jurisprudence. As the Court, per Justice Sutherland, once stressed: 11 Maintenance of the jury as a fact-finding body is of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right to a jury trial should be scrutinized with the utmost care. 12 Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 486, 55 S.Ct. 296, 301, 79 L.Ed. 603 (1935). See also Jacob v. City of New York, 315 U.S. 752, 752-53, 62 S.Ct. 854, 854-55, 86 L.Ed. 1166 (1942) (Murphy, J.) (The right of jury trial in civil cases at common law is a basic and fundamental feature of our system of federal jurisprudence which is protected by the Seventh Amendment. A right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen, whether guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by statute, should be jealously guarded by the courts.); Parsons v. Bedford, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 433, 446, 7 L.Ed. 732 (1830) (Story, J.) (The trial by jury is justly dear to the American people. It has always been an object of deep interest and solicitude, and every encroachment upon it has been watched with great jealousy.). Accordingly, the right to grant mandamus to require jury trial where it has been improperly denied is settled. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 511, 79 S.Ct. 948, 957, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959) (reversing circuit court's refusal to issue writ of mandamus reinstating petitioner's jury demand). As the Court observed in Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, it is the responsibility of the Federal Courts of Appeals to grant mandamus where necessary to protect the constitutional right to trial by jury. 369 U.S. 469, 472, 82 S.Ct. 894, 897, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962). 13 The cases that American cites to the contrary, First National Bank v. Warren, 796 F.2d 999 (7th Cir.1986), and In re Don Hamilton Oil Co., 783 F.2d 151 (8th Cir.1986), are unavailing. In Hamilton, the Eighth Circuit declined to issue a writ of mandamus ordering a jury trial on the issue of back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 217 (1988). The court, in a brief per curiam opinion, noted that the three circuit courts to consider this question on the merits had held that an action based on section 217 entails no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. 783 F.2d at 151-52. In light of the decisions of the other circuits adverse to Hamilton's position, as well as what it termed the questionable nature of the legal issue presented, id. at 152, the court denied Hamilton's petition without prejudice. Unlike the court in Hamilton, we are asked to evaluate the petitioner's right to a jury trial on the factual questions relating to patent validity, 4 a right that is protected by the Seventh Amendment when those questions arise in a paradigmatic patent infringement suit. Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 603, 225 USPQ 243, 250 (Fed.Cir.1985). The scant support Hamilton offers for American's position cannot stand against Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen. 14 The Seventh Circuit's holding in First National offers American no more support than does Hamilton; in fact, it supports Lockwood. In First National, the court declined to issue a writ of mandamus ordering a jury trial on the issue of disgorgement in an action alleging unjust enrichment. The court undertook a detailed analysis of Beacon Theatres, Dairy Queen, and the cases cited therein, concluding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy for the wrongful denial of the right to a jury trial where (a) the legal and equitable claims to be tried rest on a common factual foundation, and (b) a prior judgment on the equitable claim(s) might foreclose the legal claim by issue or claim preclusion. 796 F.2d at 1002-04. Because there was no possibility of issue or claim preclusion in the case, the court denied First National's petition. Id. at 1006 (emphasis added). Unlike the petitioner in First National, Lockwood may confront issue-preclusive effects from a bench trial on American's claim of unenforceability; such effects, if they occur, are injuries not easily repaired on appeal. First National, 796 F.2d at 1003. Thus, the Seventh Circuit's approach in First National, far from supporting American's position, militates in favor of issuing the writ in this case. 15 We acknowledge that to review the district court's decision to strike Lockwood's jury demand by means of a pre-judgment mandamus petition presents all the vices of an interlocutory appeal. Id. at 1001. We nonetheless conclude, along with a number of our sister circuits, that the teachings of Dairy Queen and Beacon Theatres regarding the propriety of mandamus to cure a wrongful denial of the right to trial by jury are beyond cavil. Nissan Motor Corp. v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d 408, 408 (10th Cir.1992) ([M]andamus is appropriate relief when it is necessary to protect the right to a jury trial.) (citing Dairy Queen ); Allegheny Int'l, Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 920 F.2d 1127, 1134 (3d Cir.1990) (same); Mondor v. U.S. Dist. Court, 910 F.2d 585, 585-86 (9th Cir.1990) (same); Maldonado v. Flynn, 671 F.2d 729, 731 (2d Cir.1982) (citing Beacon Theatres ); Filmon Process Corp. v. Sirica, 379 F.2d 449, 450-51, 153 USPQ 440, 440 (D.C.Cir.1967) (citing both Dairy Queen and Beacon Theatres ). Accordingly, rather than defer resolution of Lockwood's Seventh Amendment claim until he takes an appeal from a final judgment in the district court, we determine now whether the court improperly struck his jury demand.