Chapter 2: Scope of Legal and Equitable Remedies

A. Limitations on Remedies
a. Intro
i. Ch focuses on remedies that are uniquely tailored for the substantive right - limitations upon the
remedy are imposed by the source of that remedy
ii. There are three sources of remedial rights
1. Statutes
2. Federal and state constitutions
3. Common law
iii. Source of Ps desired remedy matters because
1. the P must establish that a particular remedy is permissible and
2. the source may place some limitations upon the remedy
b. Orloff v. LA Turf Club (CA 1947)
i. Facts: P was admitted to the D’s horse racing course in January and thereafter ejected. In
February he again was admitted and ejected without cause allegedly causing P humiliation and
mental anguish. Civil Code 53 provides that it is unlawful for any race course to refuse
admittance to any person over 21 who purchases a ticket and demands admission who is not
under the influence, engages in boisterous conduct, or is of lewd or immoral character. P was not
any of these things.
1. The statute provides that any person who is refused admission is entitled to recover the
actual damages and 100$. D argues that is the exclusive remedy since that section was
unknown at common law therefore it derogates from the CL and must be strictly
construed as exclusive, thereby preventing specific relief.
2. D relies on a rule of construction that where a new right that does not exist at CL is
created by statute and the remedy for infringement is provided, such remedy is exclusive
of all others. TC ruled for D.
ii. Issue: Whether the remedy in Civil Code 53 that derogates from the CL is exclusive?
iii. Holding: No. The remedy is not exclusive.
iv. Rule: The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed,
has no application to the civil code. The code establishes the law of this state respecting the
subjects to which it relates, and its provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to affect
its objects and to promote justice. An important factor in interpreting the statute is the adequacy
of the remedy provided by the statute.
v. Rationale: A recovery of compensatory damages and 100$ is inadequate relief in case of this
character. Compensable damages would be extremely difficult to measure and prove. 100 is
relatively insignificant when a positive and unequivocal right has been established and violated.
1. Specific relief should be available where the e object is to prevent the exclusion of certain
person and there are no reasons why relief should be denied
2. ** the positive declaration of the personal right and the importance of its preservation
together with the inadequacy of the remedy by way of damages by way of 100 $ =
sufficient reason for injunctive relief.
vi. Notes
1. D can be subject to more than one proceeding for the same wrong
a. Double jeopardy is not offended when there are both civil and criminal penalties
2. Legislative substitution of remedial schemes is common
a. Workers comp
b. No fault automobile legislation
c. Dollar limit on malpractice claims
 3. Difference between altering or eliminating a right vs a remedy
c. Jurisdictional Remedy Limitations: the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) 1932
i. Limits the ability of the federal courts to use their equity jurisdiction to interfere with labor
disputes
ii. No court of the US shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order to temporary or
permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any
person or persons participating or interested in such dispute from doing, whether singly or in
concert, any of the following acts:
1. Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment
2. Giving publicly to the existence of, or facts involved in, any labor dispute, weather by
advertising, speaking patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence
3. Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor
dispute
4. Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts
heretofore specified.
iii. Boys Markets, Inc v. Retail Clerks Union (US 1970)
1. Issue was whether a federal DC could enjoin strike in breach of a no strike obligation
under a collective bargaining agreement
a. K required parties to arbitrate. Act of contract post NLGA allowed fed courts to
enforce arbitration agreements by injunction.
2. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v CHicago River and Ind. R. Co. (US 1957)
a. Peaceful strike held in violation of a statutory arbitrary duty was not the type of
situation that NLGA was responsive
b. An important federal policy was involved in the peaceful settlement of disputes
throughout the statutorily mandated arbitration procedure, that this important
policy was imperiled if equitable remedies were not available to implement it
c. NLGA’s policy of non intervention by the federal courts should yield to the
overriding interest in the successful implementation of the arbitration process
iv. Brady v. NFL (8th Cir 2011): Owners locked players out of facilities due to labor dispute. Players
filed suit. Court ruled that the judge was precluded from judicial interference in the labor union
whether or not the union existed.
d. The Rule Against Double Recoveries
i. Plaintiff’s should not make a profit or obtain more than one recovery
ii. Must closely examine the substantive law benign vindicated and the remedies being awarded
iii. DSC Communications Corp v Next Level Communications (5th Cir 1997): P designer of
telecommunications equipment sued employees that left and started a new company for breach of
K, diversion of corporate opportunity, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Jury found D liable
under all 3 theories and awarded 350m.
1. In addition to damages, DSC also sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the Ds from
using trade secrets, but court found this equitable relief was duplicative rather than
complementary because the award compensated Ps for future injury not just past injury
B. Consequences of Remedy Characterizations
a. If the claim is characterized as predominantly equitable, then there is no right to a jury trial for ANY of
the issues
b. If it is considered predominantly legal, then parties have a right to a jury trial on the LEGAL issues
c. Vernes v. Alvanos (SC 2010)
i. Facts: Alvanos (defendant) was the trustee of a trust. HCC Investments, Inc. (plaintiff) was the
settlor of the trust. HCC sued Alvanos for breach of the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. For
 the breach of the duty of care claim, HCC sought relief in the form of restoration to the trust of
any lost income, lost capital gains, and appreciation in value. For the breach of the duty of loyalty
claim, HCC sought disgorgement of commissions and profits Alvanos received from the trust.
Alvanos moved for a jury trial. The trial court denied the motion. Alvanos appealed.
ii. Issue: Right to jury trial?
iii. Holding: No.
iv. Rule: Characterization of an action as equitable or legal depends on the applicant's main purpose
in bringing the action, which can generally be ascertained by the body fo the complaint, the
prayer for relief, or any other facts and circumstances which throw light upon the main purpose of
the action
v. Rationale: While breach of fiduciary duty can be an action at law, it can be an equitable action if
the relief sought is equitable. Restitution and disgorgement are equitable remedies. Restoring the
trust, lost income, lost capital gain, and lost appreciation in value as a result of the alleged breach
are more akin to restitution than money damages in light of the purpose. Disgorgement is
equitable. While D will have to pay money to the trust if cause of action is proven, that does not
mean the cause of action is legal in nature.
d. Notes
i. States vary in granting the right to a jury
ii. Appealability of an order can also turn on remedial characterization
1. In action at law, stays are appealable on an interlocutory basis
2. If equitable, action not appealable until there is a final judgment