Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc.
Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Rsrv. Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1987-12-09
- Topic
- litigation
PER CURIAM: Gertrude Brooks Schuyt appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert J. Ward, J., after a bench trial, dismissing Schuyt’s amended complaint on the merits in an action against *46defendants-appellees Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”), T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (the “Advisor”) and certain directors of the Fund having affiliations with the Advisor.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
SCHUYT v. ROWE PRICE PRIME RESERVE FUND, INC.,835 F.2d 45(2nd Cir. 1987)
GERTRUDE BROOKS SCHUYT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ROWE PRICE RESERVE FUND,
INC., T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC., CARTER O. HOFFMAN, EDWARD A. TABER,
III AND GEORGE J. COLLINS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 433, Docket 87-7588.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued December 7, 1987.
Decided December 9, 1987.
Daniel A. Pollack, New York City (Pollack Kaminsky, Martin I. Kaminsky, Henry H. Hopkins, Susan Y. Chin, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, OAKES and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
[2] Schuyt also appeals from an order of the district court dated April 1, 1987, granting defendants' motion to strike Schuyt's jury demand. Schuyt argues that she is entitled to a jury trial on both her section 36(b) and section 20(a) claims since both claims seek "legal damages." We disagree. The mere fact that Schuyt has designated the relief she seeks as "damages" does not mean that she is automatically entitled to a jury trial. As Judge Friendly noted inSecurities and Exchange Commission v.Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc.,574 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1978):
[N]ot all money claims are triable to a jury. . . . And `[w]hen restitution is sought in the form and in the situations allowed in equity prior to the rules or authorized by valid statutes there is no right to a jury trial'
[3] (citations omitted). See alsoMaldonado v. Flynn,477 F.Supp. 1007, 1011 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (claims filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for proxy violations were essentially equitable in nature and thus plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial). Appellant stresses that inIn re Gartenberg,636 F.2d 16, 18 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied,451 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1979, 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981), this court left open the general question of whether a plaintiff could assert a "bona fide claim for damages" under section 36(b) entitling such plaintiff to a jury trial. However, the particular plaintiff inIn re Gartenberghad sought what was in essence an equitable disgorgement and an accounting, and under those facts the court determined that a jury trial was not available. Schuyt's claim is similar to the claim made inIn re Gartenbergunder section 36(b) and is essentially an equitable one. Schuyt seeks repayment to the Fund of the excessive advisory fees paid; this is essentially an equitable remedy, not a "bona fide claim for damages." Similarly, Schuyt's claim under section 20(a), in essence, seeks rescission of the advisory agreements between the Fund and the Advisor and restitution and is thus equitable in nature.
[4] The judgment of the district court is affirmed.