Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc.
- Carter
- 1:19-cv-00827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Judge Carter granted Kiarie’s request for a jury trial on his quantum-meruit and unjust-enrichment claims.
Kihara Kiarie and the defendants—Dumbstruck, Inc., Peter Allegretti, Michael Tanski, and Jeff Tetrault—were affected because the court ordered that Kiarie’s remaining quantum-meruit and unjust-enrichment claims would be tried to a jury.
What happened
In Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc., Kihara Kiarie asked the court to hold a jury trial on his remaining claims for payment under quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The defendants argued that these claims were equitable and therefore not eligible for a jury trial.
The court ruled that Kiarie’s quantum-meruit claim could be tried to a jury because New York law treats that type of claim as a legal action when money damages are sought. Although unjust enrichment is generally considered equitable, the court also sent that claim to a jury because it substantially overlaps with the issues in the trial.
Judge Carter granted Kiarie’s request, ordered that the case proceed to a jury trial, adopted the parties’ revised pretrial schedule, and set deadlines for pretrial filings. The order did not decide whether Kiarie or the defendants would ultimately prevail on the remaining claims.
The detailed version
- Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00827
- Carter
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
Kihara Kiarie, individually and as trustee of the Kihara Kiarie Revocable Trust, sued Dumbstruck, Inc., Peter Allegretti, Michael Tanski, and Jeff Tetrault. His claims included breach of contract, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and declaratory judgment. The defendants asserted several counterclaims, including breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.
The defendants previously obtained summary judgment in part, and the court dismissed all of Kiarie’s claims except unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The remaining matters identified for trial were Kiarie’s two claims and the defendants’ counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference. The issue in this order was whether Kiarie’s remaining claims could be tried to a jury.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 39(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may strike a jury demand if there is no federal right to a jury trial on the relevant issues. The Seventh Amendment protects jury trials for legal claims, while claims involving only equitable rights and remedies generally are decided by the court. To determine whether a claim is legal or equitable, courts consider whether the claim resembles an historical common-law action and whether the requested remedy is legal or equitable. The nature of the remedy is the more important consideration.
Quantum Meruit
Kiarie alleged that he provided services as a chief operating officer and sought money damages if he could not enforce the parties’ written but unexecuted employment documentation. The court explained that quantum meruit is a form of quasi-contract claim. Although it is sometimes described as equitable because it is based on fairness, New York law characterizes a quantum-meruit claim as an action at law. Because Kiarie sought money damages, the court held that this claim would be tried to a jury.
Unjust Enrichment
The court recognized that New York courts generally treat unjust enrichment as an equitable claim that does not provide a right to a jury trial. However, it also noted that an unjust-enrichment claim may be submitted to a jury when the issues overlap clearly with issues that will already be tried to a jury. Because of that overlap in this case, the court held that Kiarie’s unjust-enrichment claim would also be tried to a jury.
Ruling and Case Schedule
The court granted Kiarie’s request for a jury trial. It also adopted the parties’ revised pretrial schedule. The parties were ordered to file motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, and voir dire questions by January 8, 2024; responses to motions in limine were due January 12, 2024; the final pretrial conference was set for January 19, 2024; and trial was scheduled to begin January 22, 2024. This order addressed the method of trial and did not resolve the merits of the remaining claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.