359 U.S. 500 (1959)
Fox West Coast Theatres, Inc. operated a movie theatre in San Bernardino, California and exhibited films under contracts with distributors granting exclusive first-run rights and clearance periods during which no other theatre could show the same pictures.1 Beacon Theatres, Inc. built a drive-in theatre about 11 miles away and notified Fox that it considered the clearance provisions to be violations of the antitrust laws, threatening treble damage suits against Fox and its distributors.2
Fox filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging a controversy under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act.3 The complaint sought a declaration that the clearances were reasonable and not in violation of the antitrust laws together with an injunction preventing Beacon from instituting any antitrust actions against Fox and its distributors arising out of the controversy.4
Beacon filed an answer denying the threats, a counterclaim against Fox, and a cross-claim against an intervening exhibitor.5 These pleadings asserted that there was no substantial competition between the theatres, that the clearances were unreasonable, and that a conspiracy existed between Fox and distributors to manipulate contracts so as to restrain trade and monopolize first-run pictures. They sought treble damages.6
Beacon demanded a jury trial of the factual issues under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).7 The district court directed that the issues raised by Fox's complaint, including the question of competition between the theatres, be tried to the court first under Rules 42(b) and 57 before any jury determination of the antitrust violation charges in the counterclaim and cross-claim.8
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Beacon's petition for mandamus to vacate the district court's orders, holding that the trial judge had acted within his discretion.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.10
Whether Beacon Theatres, Inc. was entitled to a jury trial on the factual issues in its counterclaim and cross-claim alleging antitrust violations?11
The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial applies to treble damage suits under the antitrust laws. It is preserved by the Declaratory Judgment Act, which allows prospective defendants to sue for nonliability without eliminating the jury right for either party.12
Yes. Beacon filed an answer, counterclaim, and cross-claim asserting no substantial competition between the theatres, unreasonable clearances, and a conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolize first-run pictures, expressly seeking treble damages.13 Beacon demanded a jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on those factual issues.14 Fox's prior filing of a declaratory action cannot deprive Beacon of the jury right that would exist in a treble damage suit brought by Beacon against Fox.15
Beacon Theatres, Inc. was entitled to a jury trial on the factual issues in its counterclaim and cross-claim alleging antitrust violations.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Harlan And Whittaker
Justice Stewart maintained that Fox's complaint stated a claim traditionally cognizable in equity for protection against wrongful interference with business relationships through coercion and threats of litigation.17 He argued that the district judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 42(b) to try the equitable claim first. Stewart contended that Beacon's counterclaim did not transform the original equitable action into one at law or create a jury right on issues already presented in the complaint.18
Whether the district court could order trial to the court of issues raised in Fox's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief before jury trial of the antitrust claims?19
Equity jurisdiction exists only when legal remedies are inadequate. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the same court may try legal and equitable causes in one action. Any equitable defenses can be raised in answer to legal claims, with permanent injunctive relief available after a jury verdict.20
No. Fox's complaint sought a declaration that clearances were reasonable and an injunction against Beacon instituting antitrust suits. The district court ordered the issues of competition and reasonableness from that complaint tried to the court first under Rules 42(b) and 57.21 Because the Federal Rules permit joinder of legal and equitable claims and allow temporary injunctions against harassment pending outcome of the litigation, the court could not properly subordinate the jury trial on Beacon's treble damage claims through prior determination that might operate as res judicata or collateral estoppel.22
The district court could not order trial to the court of issues raised in Fox's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief before jury trial of the antitrust claims.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Harlan And Whittaker
Justice Stewart contended that the complaint alleged irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies, entitling Fox to traditional equitable relief.24 He emphasized that established precedent permitted a court of equity to try its claim first even when a common factual issue existed with a later legal action. Stewart argued that the Federal Rules did not alter this historic relationship or expand legal remedies so as to oust equitable jurisdiction.25
Whether mandamus is available to require a jury trial where it has been improperly denied?26
Mandamus is available under the All Writs Act to protect a clear constitutional or statutory right to jury trial when that right has been improperly denied by a district court.27
Yes. Beacon sought mandamus to vacate the district court's orders directing nonjury trial of issues common to the declaratory complaint and the treble damage claims.28 The Court of Appeals denied relief, but the Supreme Court held that the right to grant mandamus to require jury trial where improperly denied is settled. The orders here improperly curtailed Beacon's Seventh Amendment right.29
Mandamus is available to require a jury trial where it has been improperly denied.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Harlan And Whittaker
Justice Stewart maintained that there was no denial of a right to jury trial. He argued that the district judge simply exercised inherent discretion confirmed by the Federal Rules to schedule trial of an equitable claim in advance of an action at law. Stewart concluded that even an abuse of such discretion could not be attacked by mandamus.31