Judge Kimba Wood
Soley’s diversity action asserted state law claims grounded on brother Wasserman’s conduct as her financial advisor. Only partly dismissing Soley’s lawsuit, the court permitted her breach of fiduciary duty and accounting claims to go forward. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a)(2), Wasserman sought to strike Soley’s jury demand or, alternatively, delineate which of her claims should be tried by a jury. The court determined that Soley’s fiduciary duty breach claim would be tried before a jury. Her accounting claim would be tried by the court. Applying the two-step inquiry from Maersk Inc. v. Neewra Inc., the court found Soley’s breach of fiduciary duty claim legal in nature, triggering the jury trial right under the second, more important step of the Seventh Amendment inquirywhether the remedy sought was legal or equitable in nature. As in Pereira v. Cogan, Soley’s complaint sought compensatory damages, whose measurement under 105 E. Second St. Assocs. v. Babrow, falls within the scope of legal relief as defined by Pereira. However, Soley’s accounting claim was equitable in nature, as was the relief sought therefora court order requiring Wasserman to provide complete records of Soley’s financial affairs and assets.
