When Are You Entitled to a Jury Trial in Federal and State Court?

Many clients believe they are entitled to a jury trial when they file or are defending a lawsuit in federal or state court. What they often do not realize, however, is how significantly the right to a jury trial has eroded through contractual waivers, alternative dispute resolution clauses, and claims that seek equitable remedies. In addition, the right to a jury trial varies significantly based upon whether the lawsuit has been filed in federal or state court.

The Standards for Determining Whether a Party Has the

Right to a Jury Trial 

In federal court, the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution governs whether a plaintiff or defendant is entitled to a jury trial. The Seventh Amendment provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

In Florida state court, the Florida Constitution governs a party’s right to a jury trial.  Article I, Section 22 provides: “The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.”

Whether in federal or state court, the right to a jury trial applies only to legal as opposed to equitable claims, but the standards are worded differently as to what constitutes a legal versus an equitable claim.[1] A legal claim is one for monetary damages. An equitable claim is typically one for non-monetary relief, e.g., an injunction, specific performance of a contract, setting aside a fraudulent transfer, etc.

In federal court, the test to determine whether a party is entitled to a jury trial is often phrased in terms of whether, “the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than an action in equity or admiralty.”[2] The test in Florida state court, however, is materially similar to the federal test but uses slightly different language: whether the party seeking a jury trial is trying to invoke rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforceable in an action at law.[3]

In short, the right to a trial by jury in federal or state court turns on the (1) nature of the right sought to be enforced, and (2) the remedy sought to be enforced, with the second part more important than the first.[4] Thus, whether an action will lie at law, in equity, or both, depends on the nature of the right sought to be enforced and the remedy sought.[5] Notably, however, the mere use of the label “damages” is insufficient to create the right to jury trial.[6] Instead, federal and state courts must look to the substances of the specific relief requested not just labels.[7]

What Happens When Legal and Equitable Claims Are Intertwined? 

Where legal and equitable claims are intertwined, a jury must make findings concerning all facts which are common to the legal and equitable claims before the trial court may consider granting an equitable remedy on such claim.[8] Legal and equitable issues are “sufficiently similar” or “intertwined” if a jury, in order to return a verdict in an action at law, would necessarily have to decide an issue of fact, which is also a required element of an equitable claim.[9] Although courts have discretion in determining the procedure by which both jury and nonjury claims may be tried, as a practical matter, the legal claims are usually tried first to a jury, with the judge later resolving any equitable claims or remedies that have not already been decided by the jury.[10]

 How Can a Judge Use a Jury’s Findings When the Judge Decides What  Equitable Remedies to Fashion?

Although there is no constitutional right to a jury trial where an equitable remedy is sought, courts have the power to direct that an issue of fact be tried by a jury.[11] The verdict of the jury is intended only to aid the court in the consideration of the case and has no binding effect, i.e., the jury plays an advisory role to the court. Modern practice is “to submit [issues in equity] as specific questions to be answered in the form of a special verdict.”[12]

In federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) provides that the court on motion or on its own (1) may try any issue with an advisory jury; or (2) may with the parties’ consent, try any issue by a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if a jury trial had been a matter of right, unless the action is against the United States and a federal statute provides for a nonjury trial.

In Florida state court, section 86.071, Florida Statutes, provides that, with respect to actions for declaratory judgment, if there is a question of fact, “necessary to be determined before judgment can be rendered, the court may direct the submission to a jury.” The question of fact may be submitted to the jury by interrogatories “whether a general verdict is required or not.”[13]

Conclusion

 Whether a party is entitled to a jury trial on a claim cannot always be determined at a facial level. Instead, federal and state courts must look past labels and examine the substance of a claim to determine whether the nature of the claim is legal or equitable in nature. Specifically, courts must examine whether the remedy sought is legal in nature (usually monetary damages that a jury will decide) or equitable in nature (usually non-monetary relief that the court will decide). And while it gets more complicated when legal and equitable remedies are intertwined within the same claim, courts retain discretion to use a jury’s findings to guide the court in fashionable equitable relief.

[1] King Mountain Condo. Ass’n v. Gundlach, 425 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

[2] Id.; Hughes v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC, 812 Fed. Appx. 828, 833 (11th Cir. 2020).

[3] King Mountain Condo. Ass’n, 425 So.2d at 570.

[4] Hughes, 812 Fed. Appx. at 833.

[5] Id.; King Mountain Condo. Ass’n, 425 So.2d at 570.

[6] Id.

[7] See, e.g.: Hansard Construction Corp. v. Rite Aid of Florida, Inc., 783 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); King Mountain Condo. Ass’n., 425 So.2d at 570; Boyce v. Hort, 666, So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

[8] Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So.2d 984, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Kreis v. Turtle Reef Condominium I, Inc., 614 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

[9]  Kreis, 614 So.2d at 1216.

[10] Sunbank, N.A. v. Retirement Facility at Palm-Aire, Ltd., 698 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

[11] See, e.g., Sanitary Linen Service Co. v. Executive Uniform Rental, Inc., 270 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

[12] City of Miami v. Huttoe, 40 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla. 1949), overruled in part on other grounds, Larson v. Higginbotham, 66 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1953).

[13] Fla. Stat. § 86.071; see, e.g., Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 894 So.2d 5 (Fla. 2005).