United States Aviation Underwriters Inc. v. Aerospike Iron, LLC et al

1
21-CV-758 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES AVIATION
UNDERWRITERS INC., a New York
corporation, individually and on behalf of
United States Aircraft Insurance Group,
Plaintiff,
v.
AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and CHARLES
BRANDES, a California resident,
Defendants.
Case No.: 21-CV-758 JLS (BLM)
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
AEROSPIKE IRON, LLC; and
CHARLES BRANDES,
Counterclaimants,
v.
UNITED STATES AVIATION
UNDERWRITERS INC., individually and
on behalf of United States Aircraft
Insurance Group; ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Counter-defendants.
Case 3:21-cv-00758-JLS-BLM Document 180 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
21-CV-758 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Supplemental Briefing (“Supp. Brief,” ECF
No. 179) in response to the Court’s Order requesting the Parties to confer regarding pretrial
issues (“Order,” ECF No. 176). In the Supplemental Briefing, the Parties request “that the
equitable recission claim be tried to the bench first, to be immediately followed by a jury
trial on the breach of contract claim rather than vice versa.” Supp. Brief at 3. However,
the Parties do not present the Court with any legal authority discussing the Court’s
authority to do so. See generally Supp. Brief.
“The Supreme Court has held that ‘where equitable and legal claims are joined in
the same action, there is a right to jury trial on the legal claims which must not be infringed
either by trying the legal issues as incidental to the equitable ones or by a court trial of a
common issue existing between the claims.’” Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Sys., Inc.,
890 F.2d 165, 170 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 537–38
(1970)). “Thus, where there are issues common to both the equitable and legal claims, ‘the
legal 	claims 	involved 	in 	the 	action 	must 	be 	determined 	prior 	to 	any 	final 	court
determination of [the] equitable claims.’” 	Id. (quoting Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369
U.S. 469, 479 (1962)). “When legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the
trial judge only has limited discretion in determining the sequence of the trial and ‘that
discretion . . . must, whenever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.’” 	Id. (quoting
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959)). 	“Under only the most
imperative circumstances . . . can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior
determination of equitable claims.” Id. However, “[w]here the ‘legal and equitable claims
asserted in a single action are entirely independent, the order of trial is immaterial, and may
be left in the discretion of the court.’” Id. at 171 (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2305, at 35 (1971)).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:21-cv-00758-JLS-BLM Document 180 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
21-CV-758 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Therefore, the Parties are ORDERED to submit supplemental briefing concerning
the grounds for trying the equitable recission claim to the bench before the legal claims are
tried to the jury. This briefing must be filed by January 9, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:21-cv-00758-JLS-BLM Document 180 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3