Shalini Ahmed v. United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

This case presents a Seventh Amendment sequenc­ ing question arising from the denial of mandamus. After remand in a long-running SEC receivership proceeding, the district court entered an order resolv­ ing disputed factual issues concerning ownership, tracing, commingling, and the availability of assets ti­ tled to relief defendants to satisfy a judgment against another person. Petitioner and other Relief Defend­ ants filed a Rule 59(e) motion raising, among other things, a Seventh Amendment jury-trial claim. Peti­ tioner then filed a separate jury demand to preserve that right. The district court denied the jury demand as “premature” because the same jury-trial argu­ ments were already pending in the Rule 59(e) motion. Petitioner sought mandamus, arguing that the dis­ trict court could not decide overlapping factual issues before adjudicating the jury-trial right. The Second Circuit denied mandamus, holding that Petitioner had not shown a clear and indisputable right to the writ or the absence of another adequate remedy. The Eighth Circuit, applying Cheney, granted mandamus to restore a jury demand where the government sought a money'judgment reaching funds that were allegedly dissipated or commingled. In re Brazile, 993 F. 3d 593, 595 (2021). The question presented is: Whether mandamus is available to enforce the Sev­ enth Amendment sequencing rule of Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen where a district court denies a jury demand as premature and proceeds to consider a Rule 59(e) motion involving factual issues overlapping with that jury demand.