Opinion ID: 2033184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ross's Usefulness Under Our Circumstances

Text: In Ross, the Court specifically disagreed with the proposition that in no event does the right to a jury trial extend to derivative actions brought by the stockholders of a corporation. Id. at 532, 90 S.Ct. at 735, 24 L.Ed.2d at 733. The Court declared that legal claims are not magically converted into equitable issues by their presentation to a court of equity in a derivative suit. Id. at 537, 90 S.Ct. at 738, 24 L.Ed.2d at 736. Similar to our facts, in Ross, the shareholders of Lehman Corporation brought a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation alleging breach of fiduciary duties and negligence and requesting money damages. Id. at 541, 90 S.Ct. at 740, 24 L.Ed.2d. at 738. Generally, a fiduciary duty claim is one reserved for equity. However, tort claims such as negligence, breach of contract (asserted in Ross ), and fraudulent misrepresentation (asserted in the present case) are direct wrongs against the corporation itself where the corporation could sue at law to obtain relief. The Supreme Court questioned why, when these legal claims were raised by shareholders instead, the `right to a jury trial should be taken away because the present plaintiff [could not] persuade the only party having a cause of action to sue...'? Id. at 535, 90 S.Ct. at 736, 24 L.Ed.2d at 734 (quoting Fleitmann v. Welsbach St. Lighting Co. of Am., 240 U.S. 27, 28, 36 S.Ct. 233, 234, 60 L.Ed. 505, 506 (1916)). Accordingly, it held that the legal claims must be heard by a jury under the Seventh Amendment. Id. at 541, 90 S.Ct. at 740, 24 L.Ed.2d at 738.