When a single district court Judge has control over all legal and equitable claims before it in a single proceeding, even though the proceeding involves separate actions, can that Judge avoid the mandate of Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) that the discretion to deprive a party of a jury trial 'is very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial'?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners filed this legal action in Federal court for violations of the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act (“FHA Action”). Petitioners demanded a jury trial to which they were entitled as a matter of law. Six months later, Respondents filed an equitable action condemning the same property that was the subject of the FHA Action. The Condemnation Action was removed to Federal court where the Judge overseeing the FHA Action asked that it be assigned to him as a related case. His request was granted. Petitioners moved to have their first-filed FHA Action tried first. The Judge denied the request. Petitioners asserted their FHA and CRA claims as affirmative defenses to the valid public purpose of the Condemnation Action, as required lest they be waived. The District Court tried the Condemnation Action to the bench without a jury and then dismissed the FHA Action based on collateral estoppel, thereby denying Petitioners a jury trial on their FHA and CRA claims. This Court in Beacon Theatres mandated that the discretion to deprive a party of ajury trial “is very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.” Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959). This Court further stated: “[O]nly under the most imperative circumstances, circumstances which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims.” Id. at 510-11. The questions presented are: 1. When a single district court Judge has control over all legal and equitable claims before it in a single u proceeding, even though the proceeding involves separate actions, can that Judge avoid the mandate of Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) that the discretion to deprive a party of a jury trial “is very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial”? 2. Should Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) be extended so that a jury trial of legal claims can be lost through a prior determination of equitable claims in the absence of imperative circumstances and where all claims are before the same Judge at all times?