{"id":302,"date":"2004-04-09T11:19:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-09T11:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/copyright_wars\/declaratory_judgment.html"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"1970-01-01T05:00:00","slug":"declaratory_judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/2004\/04\/09\/declaratory_judgment","title":{"rendered":"SCO v. IBM: Trial by Jury"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> I appreciate <a href=\"http:\/\/www.groklaw.net\">Groklaw&#8217;s<\/a> timely and incisive coverage of <a href=\"http:\/\/sco.iwethey.org\">SCO v. IBM<\/a>; however, the site&#8217;s primary author (a paralegal) sometimes makes subtle erroneous statements of law. For example, in yesterday&#8217;s posting, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.groklaw.net\/article.php?story=20040407201258569\">What&#8217;s Wrong with Enderle&#8217;s &#8220;Legal&#8221; Strategy<\/a>, she writes: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p> Mr. Enderle, SCO&#8217;s true believer, has written that if he were on a jury, he&#8217;d vote for SCO. That, of course, does not amaze you. He has also given us a heads up on what he believes they will tell a jury and why he thinks it will convince them. Unfortunately for Mr. Enderle&#8217;s theory, he doesn&#8217;t understand that when you ask for a declaratory judgment, as IBM has on its counterclaims, the jury doesn&#8217;t decide it. Declaratory judgments are decided by the judge. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> This is wrong. See, e.g., <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/cgi-bin\/getcase.pl?navby=case&#038;court=us&#038;vol=359&#038;invol=500\">Beacon Theatres v. Westover<\/a>, 359 U.S. 500 (1959): <\/p>\n<blockquote><p> The District Court&#8217;s finding that the Complaint for Declaratory Relief presented basically equitable issues draws no support from the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 57. See also 48 Stat. 955, 28 U.S.C. (1940 ed.) 400. That statute, while allowing prospective defendants to sue to establish their nonliability, <b>specifically preserves the right to jury trial for both parties<\/b>. [..] It follows that if Beacon would have been entitled to a jury trial in a treble damage suit against Fox it cannot be deprived of that right merely because Fox took advantage of the availability of declaratory relief to sue Beacon first. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> (emphasis added)<br \/> The issue is not whether it is a declaratory judgment action, but whether there are disputed issues of fact for the jury and the nature of the relief sought. Equitable (or injunctive) relief must be granted by a judge, but claims for other sorts of relief can be heard by a jury, whether it is a declaratory judgment action or not. I haven&#8217;t examined the papers carefully enough to answer that question definitively in this case, but I suspect there are disputed issues of fact in the counterclaim apart from any requests for injunctive relief. Thus, IBM&#8217;s declaratory judgment counterclaims may, in fact, go to a local jury. <\/p>\n<p> This is similar to a Groklaw error from this past summer, in which <a href=\"http:\/\/radio.weblogs.com\/0120124\/2003\/08\/04.html#a169\">the author confused a preliminary injunction<\/a> or summary judgment (both of which are decided by a judge) with declaratory judgment. See <a href=\"http:\/\/zgp.org\/pipermail\/linux-elitists\/2003-August\/006831.html\">my explanations<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/radiocomments.userland.com\/comments?u=120124&#038;p=171&#038;link=http%3A%2F%2Fradio.weblogs.com%2F0120124%2F2003%2F08%2F04.html%23a171\">at the time<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I appreciate Groklaw&#8217;s timely and incisive coverage of SCO v. IBM; however, the site&#8217;s primary author (a paralegal) sometimes makes subtle erroneous statements of law. For example, in yesterday&#8217;s posting, What&#8217;s Wrong with Enderle&#8217;s &#8220;Legal&#8221; Strategy, she writes: Mr. Enderle, SCO&#8217;s true believer, has written that if he were on a jury, he&#8217;d vote for [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/adam.rosi-kessel.org\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}