## Facts

- A hydroelectric plant (built in 1912 and later disused) depended on water carried through a canal connecting to the Illinois River.
- The canal was owned by Marseilles Land and Water Company; the plant was owned by Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC.
- Under a predecessor contract, the plant owner paid rent for canal use, and the canal owner agreed to keep the canal in good repair.
- When Marseilles Hydro sought to restart operations, it believed the canal wall was unsafe and requested repairs; the canal owner refused.
- Before a hearing on a preliminary injunction, the canal wall collapsed.
- Marseilles Hydro sought (1) an order allowing it to enter the canal owner’s land to repair the wall, (2) a lien on the canal property for repair costs, and (3) a declaration that no rent was owed while the canal was not maintained.
- The canal owner counterclaimed for unpaid rent after Marseilles Hydro withheld rent pending repairs.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), did the canal owner’s jury demand become untimely because rent was previously implicated by a declaratory-judgment request, or was it timely when filed within ten days after the rent counterclaim?
2. Does a plaintiff’s choice to plead injunctive, lien, and declaratory relief eliminate the opposing party’s jury right on legal issues raised by a counterclaim?
3. Did the district court’s injunctive relief comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)’s requirement of a specific, self-contained injunction, and what is the remedy for noncompliance?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held the canal owner’s jury demand was timely because the rent counterclaim was a legal claim and the Rule 38(b) period ran from service of the last pleading directed to that issue.
- The court rejected the view that the plaintiff’s earlier declaratory request about rent cut off the defendant’s jury right on its legal counterclaim.
- The court found the district court’s injunctive relief was procedurally defective under Rule 65(d) because it was not issued as a detailed, self-contained injunction document and required correction on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 38(b), the time to demand a jury runs from service of the last pleading directed to the issue for which a jury trial is sought; a counterclaim can be the pleading that triggers the deadline for that issue.
- A claim framed as equitable or declaratory does not control jury entitlement; jury-trial analysis turns on whether the underlying issue is legal or equitable, and a legal counterclaim preserves the right to a jury on those legal issues if timely demanded.
- Under Rule 65(d), any injunction must be specific and set out in a self-contained order so that the parties can determine the required conduct and enforcement (including contempt) can proceed on a clear record.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the defendant’s rent counterclaim presented legal issues carrying a jury right and that the jury demand filed within Rule 38(b)’s deadline was timely, requiring reversal of the bench disposition; it also directed that any injunctive relief be reissued on remand in a Rule 65(d)-compliant, self-contained form.


Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co., 299 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2002)