Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a shareholder of Fidelity Cash Reserves. He sued Fidelity and its investment adviser under 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b), claiming that Fidelity was paying the adviser too large a fee. The district court ruled that P's claim was basically 'equitable,' not 'legal' in nature, and that P was not entitled to a trial before a jury. P sought a writ of mandamus to compel a jury trial.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.