Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1989 · …he mere fact that has designated the relief she as 'damages' does not mean that she is automatically entitled to a jury trial at p. 46 ≈ altered
29 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management, Inc. (ca2, 1989-05-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 17 C.F.R. § 270.20a-1 cited 1× in this case · 2 total citations of statute #19 15 U.S.C. § 80a-20 cited 1× in this case · 27 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management, Inc. (5×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he mere fact that has designated the relief she as 'damages' does not mean that she is automatically entitled to a jury trial
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management (5×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he mere fact that has designated the relief she as 'damages' does not mean that she is automatically entitled to a jury trial
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Resnick v. Resnick
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45, 46 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 1594 , 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988) (citing SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.1978) (Friendly, J.)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucyle Kalish v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management, Inc., 875 F.2d 404, 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989); Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45, 46 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 1594 , 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988); In re Gartenberg, 636 F.2d 16, 17-18 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1979 , 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kalish v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management, Inc., 875 F.2d 404, 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989); Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45, 46 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 1594 , 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988); In re Gartenberg, 636 F.2d 16, 17-18 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1979 , 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" In re: DAVIS NEW YORK VENTURE FUND FEE LITIGATION
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 962 , 7 989.77 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 835 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987) (finding that a profit margin of 77.3% 8 was not excessive, but noting that it could be depending on other factors, such as the quality of 9 the services or the strength of the board’s process). 10 Impact of the Gartenberg Factors 1] Having considered ail the relevant Gartenberg factors, in light of the substantial 12 deference owed to the Board based on its strong Section 15(c) process, the Court concludes that 13 Plaintiffs have failed to proffer sufficient facts to …
discussed Cited "see" In re Evergreen Mutual Funds Fee Litigation
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strougo v. BEA Assocs., 188 F.Supp.2d 373, 384 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (citing Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 663 F.Supp. 962 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd 835 F.2d 45 (2d Cir.1987)) (“While the issue of the lower charges made by CSAM to institutional clients might in a first instance produce a triable issue, it no longer does in view of Gartenberg and Schuyt.”). e. Independence and Conscientiousness of the Trustees Finally, in support of the sixth Gartenberg factor, Plaintiffs make allegations in the proposed SADC that the Funds’ directors failed to act independently and conscientiou…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Kline Hotel Partners v. Aircoa Equity Interests, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Schuyt v. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., 835 F.2d 45, 46 (2d Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,555 Gertrude Brooks Schuyt
v.
Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., Carter O. Hoffman, Edward A. Taber, III and George J. Collins
433.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 9, 1987.
835 F.2d 45
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

835 F.2d 45

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,555
Gertrude Brooks SCHUYT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROWE PRICE PRIME RESERVE FUND, INC., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., Carter O. Hoffman, Edward A.
Taber, III and George J. Collins,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 433, Docket 87-7588.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 7, 1987.
Decided Dec. 9, 1987.

Daniel W. Krasner, New York City (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York City, Jeffrey G. Smith, Sindy R. Udell, Robert Stull, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Daniel A. Pollack, New York City (Pollack & Kaminsky, Martin I. Kaminsky, Henry H. Hopkins, Susan Y. Chin, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, OAKES and PRATT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Gertrude Brooks Schuyt appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert J. Ward, J., after a bench trial, dismissing Schuyt's amended complaint on the merits in an action against defendants-appellees Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (the "Advisor") and certain directors of the Fund having affiliations with the Advisor. Schuyt's complaint asserted claims for (1) excessive fees under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "ICA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-35(b); (2) breach of fiduciary duty under Maryland law; and (3) violations of section 20(a) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-20, and Rule 20a-1 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 270.20a-1, for alleged material omissions from the Fund's proxy statements. We affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Ward's thorough opinion, reported at 663 F.Supp. 962 (S.D.N.Y.1987).

2

Schuyt also appeals from an order of the district court dated April 1, 1987, granting defendants' motion to strike Schuyt's jury demand. Schuyt argues that she is entitled to a jury trial on both her section 36(b) and section 20(a) claims since both claims seek "legal damages." We disagree. The mere fact that Schuyt has designated the relief she seeks as "damages" does not mean that she is automatically entitled to a jury trial. As Judge Friendly noted in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.1978):

3

[N]ot all money claims are triable to a jury.... And '[w]hen restitution is sought in the form and in the situations allowed in equity prior to the rules or authorized by valid statutes there is no right to a jury trial'

4

(citations omitted). See also Maldonado v. Flynn, 477 F.Supp. 1007, 1011 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (claims filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for proxy violations were essentially equitable in nature and thus plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial). Appellant stresses that in In re Gartenberg, 636 F.2d 16, 18 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1979, 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981), this court left open the general question of whether a plaintiff could assert a "bona fide claim for damages" under section 36(b) entitling such plaintiff to a jury trial. However, the particular plaintiff in In re Gartenberg had sought what was in essence an equitable disgorgement and an accounting, and under those facts the court determined that a jury trial was not available. Schuyt's claim is similar to the claim made in In re Gartenberg under section 36(b) and is essentially an equitable one. Schuyt seeks repayment to the Fund of the excessive advisory fees paid; this is essentially an equitable remedy, not a "bona fide claim for damages." Similarly, Schuyt's claim under section 20(a), in essence, seeks rescission of the advisory agreements between the Fund and the Advisor and restitution and is thus equitable in nature.

5

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.