CHAPTER 12 USE OF JURIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

• Jurisdiction: United States

Natural Resources & Environmental Litigation II
(May 1996)
CHAPTER 12
USE OF JURIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
Robert T. McAllister
McAllister & Murphy, P.C.
Denver, Colorado

I. JURY DEMAND

A. A party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving a written jury demand after the commencement of the action but no later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P.3 8(a).

B. Failure to serve and file a jury demand constitutes a waiver by the party of a trial by jury. Fed.R.Civ.P.3 8(d).

II. LEGAL V. EQUITABLE CLAIMS

A. In determining whether a litigant is entitled to a jury trial, the Court should consider whether the relief sought is legal or equitable in nature. See United States v. Mottolo, 605 F. Supp. 898, 913 (D. N.H. 1985).

B. Generally, claims seeking legal relief are entitled to trial by jury while claims seeking equitable relief are not. See U.S. Const. amend. VII.

C. Claims seeking the recovery of response costs under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607-75 , have been held to be equitable in nature and therefore not entitled to a jury trial. See, e.g., United States v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 411, 422 n.24 (E.D. Pa. 1992); GL Industries of Michigan, Inc. v. Forstmann-Little, 800 F. Supp. 695, 698-69 (S.D. Ind. 1991); Mid Valley Bank v. North Valley Bank, 764 F. Supp. 1377, 1390 (E.D. Cal. 1991); City of Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co., 748 F. Supp. 283, 296 (E.D. Pa. 1990); United States v. Northernaire Plating Co., 685 F. Supp 1410, 1413 (W.D. Mich. 1988), aff'd, 889 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1057 (1990); Wehner v. Syntex, 682 F. Supp. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1987); United States v. Dickerson, 640 F. Supp. 448, 453 (D. Md. 1986); Mottolo, 605 F. Supp. at 913.

D. It can be argued that, because a contribution claim under section 113 of CERCLA is "dependent on the establishment of a prima facie case of liability under section 107,"

[Page 12-2]

County Line Investment Co. v. Tinney, 933 F.2d 1508, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991), and because claims under section 107 have been held to be equitable in nature, no right to a jury attaches to a section 113 claim. American Cyanamid Co. v. King Industries, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 209, 214 (D. R.I. 1993) (rejecting a demand for a jury trial in an action under section 113 of CERCLA). But see United States v. Shaner, No. 84-1372...