Now I know everybody here finds the concept of law vs equity to be very exciting. 
But this case kind of stands out for the fact that the attorneys for this class of Plaintiffs, in an attempt to sidestep a jury trial, basically ■■■■■■ their clients (the entire class) out of any chance at having their case heard at all.
There is a long standing concept, based in the common and equity practice as inherited by the United States from England, that no remedy at equity is to be granted when full relief is available at law. However, California and other States have modified this concept and have permitted plaintiffs to pursue both remedies at law and equity simultaneously.
And, as relevant to this situation, while parties are usually entitled to a jury trial in cases at law, juries are NEVER used in equity, such proceedings exclusively being held by bench trial.
This case was in Federal Court under diversity jurisdiction and in matters of law relevant to the case, California State law applies.
However, as the District Court determined and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, State equity principles do NOT govern in Federal Court, only Federal equity principles.
When the District Court found that a full remedy was available at law, equity proceedings were automatically dismissed. The Plaintiffs had already amended their lawsuit three times, dropping claims at law in an effort to dodge a jury trial. The court refused to allow Plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit a fourth time and instead dismissed the case, after four years of proceedings. To his credit, the Judge had warned the Plaintiffs of this possible outcome when they filed their third amended complaint.
The District Court and the Ninth Circuit got this right.
Attorneys and Attorney wannabees, what do you think???
Or anybody else for that matter who wishes to opine on the exciting world of equity proceedings.
