Trial and appellate litigation firm Rushing McCarl LLP has asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether defendants can undermine a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial by asserting equitable defenses to legal claims. The issue has sweeping implications for California civil litigation.
Rushing McCarl represents Mario Delis, who sued his former business partner, Jeffrey Thorn, for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil theft arising from their cannabis-business partnership.
The California Constitution and California Supreme Court precedent establish that trial by jury is an “inviolate right” in actions at law. This right applies when a plaintiff brings only legal claims (not equitable ones) to trial. When Thorn sought to bifurcate legal and equitable issues before trial, Delis — invoking Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass’n, 10 Cal. 3d 665 (1974) — dismissed all equitable claims to preserve his constitutional right to a jury determination of all facts. Raedeke held that when a plaintiff brings only legal claims to trial, they are “entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right.” In response to Delis’ dismissal of equitable claims, the trial court denied Thorn’s pretrial bifurcation request.
After a 34-day unified jury trial, the jury awarded Delis $9.9 million (after the civil-theft damages are automatically trebled). But the trial court refused to enter judgment as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664. Instead, the court reversed course and retroactively bifurcated four of Thorn’s defenses. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the parties will soon face a post-verdict bench trial covering the same evidence that the jury already heard.
Allowing defendants to bifurcate equitable defenses such as estoppel, unclean hands, or waiver in legal actions would curtail plaintiffs’ jury-trial rights. It would also allow losing defendants to relitigate facts, evidence, and theories already presented to the jury — eroding the finality of verdicts, duplicating proceedings, and increasing litigation costs.
The petition further contends that the trial court’s post-verdict bifurcation conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding that new-trial motions are the exclusive means of challenging jury verdicts. Allowing post-verdict bifurcation invites gamesmanship and waste.
Rushing McCarl LLP has therefore asked the Supreme Court to reaffirm that the right to a jury trial in legal actions depends on the plaintiff’s claims, not on the defendant’s defenses. When a plaintiff brings only legal claims to trial, they are entitled to a jury trial regardless of any equitable defenses. Equitable defenses to legal claims must be resolved by the jury or based solely on the jury’s findings.
The petition for review can be viewed here.
Rushing McCarl LLP is a trial and appellate litigation boutique based in Los Angeles, California. The firm handles complex civil litigation with a focus on business disputes. For more information about the firm’s practice, review our brochure or visit rushingmccarl.com.