United States Aviation Underwriters Inc., a New York corporation, individually and on behalf of United States Aircraft Insurance Group v. Aeroscope Iron, LLC, a California limited liability company; and Charles Brandes, a California resident

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00758
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES AVIATION Case No.: 21-CV-758 JLS (BLM) UNDERWRITERS INC., a New York 11 corporation, individually and on behalf of ORDER REQUESTING 12 United States Aircraft Insurance Group, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

13 Plaintiff,

14 v. 15 AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC, a California limited liability company; and CHARLES 16 BRANDES, a California resident, 17 Defendants. 18 AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC; and 19 CHARLES BRANDES, 20 Counterclaimants, 21 v. 22 UNITED STATES AVIATION 23 UNDERWRITERS INC., individually and on behalf of United States Aircraft 24 Insurance Group; ACE AMERICAN 25 INSURANCE COMPANY; and NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE 26 INSURANCE COMPANY, 27 Counter-defendants. 28 1 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Supplemental Briefing (“Supp. Brief,” ECF 2 No. 179) in response to the Court’s Order requesting the Parties to confer regarding pretrial 3 issues (“Order,” ECF No. 176). In the Supplemental Briefing, the Parties request “that the 4 equitable recission claim be tried to the bench first, to be immediately followed by a jury 5 trial on the breach of contract claim rather than vice versa.” Supp. Brief at 3. However, 6 the Parties do not present the Court with any legal authority discussing the Court’s 7 authority to do so. See generally Supp. Brief. 8 “The Supreme Court has held that ‘where equitable and legal claims are joined in 9 the same action, there is a right to jury trial on the legal claims which must not be infringed 10 either by trying the legal issues as incidental to the equitable ones or by a court trial of a 11 common issue existing between the claims.’” Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Sys., Inc., 12 890 F.2d 165, 170 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 537–38 13 (1970)). “Thus, where there are issues common to both the equitable and legal claims, ‘the 14 legal claims involved in the action must be determined prior to any final court 15 determination of [the] equitable claims.’” Id. (quoting Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 16 U.S. 469, 479 (1962)). “When legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the 17 trial judge only has limited discretion in determining the sequence of the trial and ‘that 18 discretion . . . must, whenever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.’” Id. (quoting 19 Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959)). “Under only the most 20 imperative circumstances . . . can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior 21 determination of equitable claims.” Id. However, “[w]here the ‘legal and equitable claims 22 asserted in a single action are entirely independent, the order of trial is immaterial, and may 23 be left in the discretion of the court.’” Id. at 171 (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 24 Practice and Procedure § 2305, at 35 (1971)). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Therefore, the Parties are ORDERED to submit supplemental briefing concerning 2 || the grounds for trying the equitable recission claim to the bench before the legal claims are 3 || tried to the jury. This briefing must be filed by January 9, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 5, 2026 . □ 6 ja cls Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28