California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc., 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 410, 8 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. App. 2017):
In their reply brief, plaintiffs place a new spin on their effort to persuade us to reverse on the equitable claims, suggesting that, if the court had not stricken their jury demand and had instead announced it would bifurcate the equitable and legal issues, they might have chosen to abandon some of the equitable claims to ensure they could present their legal claims to the jury. (See Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671, 111 Cal.Rptr. 693, 517 P.2d 1157 [by waiving their claim for equitable relief, plaintiffs "made an election of remedies in order to secure a trial by jury"].) There is a gap in the logic. We fail to see how the possibility plaintiffs might have dropped some of their equitable claims is a basis for reversing the judgment on those claims and allowing plaintiffs another chance to pursue them.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.