Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:O1-CV-0897-P
February 14, 2002
ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant Jacuzzi Inc.'s Objection to, and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs Jury Demand and Brief in Support, filed October 11, 2001. On December 4, 2001, having failed to timely file a Response to this Motion, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 15 days in which to respond. Plaintiff again failed to timely submit a Response. Therefore, the Court shall proceed to determine Defendant's Motion without a Response from Plaintiff
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sanijet Corporation ("Sanijet"), in its Second Amended Original Complaint filed on August 31, 2001, asserted claims for false advertising and promotion under Section 43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1), seeking permanent injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and court costs. See Sec. Am. Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11-12. Subsequently, Sanijet filed a Jury Demand pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38 on October 1, 2001.
Defendant Jacuzzi Inc. ("Jacuzzi") now moves this Court to strike Plaintiffs jury demand for the reasons that a party seeking only injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the Lanham Act, has no right to a jury trial. See Jacuzzi Inc.'s Obj./Mot. to Strike ("Def.'s Mot.") at 2. The Court shall now proceed to determine Defendant's Motion.
DISCUSSION
Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserves the "right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment . . . or as given by a statute of the United States." Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Thus, the initial inquiry on this motion is whether the Lanham Act provides a right of trial by jury. It is undisputed that the statute is silent on the issue of jury trial. See The Daisy Group, Ltd. v. Newport News, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 548, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Therefore, the Seventh Amendment must be consulted to determine whether Sanijet is entitled to a jury trial in this action.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury "[i]n Suits at common law." U.S. Const. amend. VII. This language has been construed by the Supreme Court to require a jury trial in those actions, including actions created by statute, that are analogous to "Suits at common law" brought in the English law courts in the 18th century, prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. See Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417 (1987). The phrase "Suits at common law" refers to "suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone are recognized, and equitable remedies are administered." Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 564 (1990).
To determine whether a particular action will resolve equitable and/or legal rights, we must examine both the nature of the issues involved and the remedy sought. "First, we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, we examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature." Id. at 565 ( citing Tull, 481 U.S. at 417-418). The second inquiry is the more important in our analysis. Id. ( citing Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 42 (1989)).
In this case, Sanijet's Second Amended Complaint brings this action against Jacuzzi pursuant to § 43 of the Lanham Act, which states that:
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for good, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which —
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damages by such act.15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1) (2001). More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant has used and continues to use in interstate commerce false and misleading descriptions and misrepresentations of fact in commercial advertising and promotion about the nature, characteristics and qualities of its [ piped] whirlpool bath systems" to the detriment of Sanijet's pipeless whirlpool bath product. Sec. Am. Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 6-9. Plaintiff also alleges that no adequate remedy at law exists for its injuries resulting from Defendant's misrepresentations, and thus seeks permanent injunctive relief against Jacuzzi. Id. ¶ 11.
Other courts have held that, in such Lanham Act cases where only injunctive relief is sought, no right to a jury trial exists. Compare Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 123 F. Supp.2d 203, 209-210 (granting motion to strike jury demand on Lanham Act claim seeking injunctive relief and an equitable accounting); Ringling Bros.-Barnum Bailey Combines Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. Travel. Dev., 955 F. Supp. 598, 601-602, 605 (E.D. Va. 1997) (granting motion to strike jury demand in Lanham Act trademark dilution action seeking equitable relief); with The Daisy Group, Ltd., 999 F. Supp. at 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying motion to strike jury demand in Lanham Act action seeking injunctive relief and profits as a rough proxy measure for damages). In this case, with Plaintiff seeking only injunctive relief, the focus on the nature of the remedy sought compels the conclusion that it is not fundamentally compensatory or legal in nature, and therefore Plaintiff has no right to a jury trial here.
In addition, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint also seeks reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Sec. Am. Orig. Compl. ¶ 12. Nevertheless, it is well settled that an award of attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a) is equitable in nature and is to be decided by the court, and not by a jury. See Nikon, Inc. v. Ikon Corp., 803 F. Supp. 910, 928 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); see also Empresa Cubana del Tabaco, 123 F. Supp. 2d at 211 ("a claim for attorneys' fees and costs under the Lanham Act does not entitle a party to a trial by jury"); Ringling Bros., 955 F. Supp. at 605 ("The availability of a costs remedy, by itself, provides no basis for a constitutional jury trial right. Costs are merely incidental to and intertwined with other available remedies. Thus, where the other available remedies are wholly equitable, costs are also an equitable remedy."). Therefore, the Court concludes here that Sanijet is not entitled to a jury trial on the basis of this requested relief.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, it shall be and it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Jacuzzi Inc.'s Objection to, and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs Jury Demand and Brief in Support shall be and is hereby GRANTED.
So Ordered.