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.

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