trial, particularly in a case such as this involving claims for equitable relief. Plaintiff counters that “a litigant has a right to a jury trial where there exists a cause of action at common law, or one analogous thereto, for legal relief.” (Document No. 9-2 at 10). However, Plaintiff also states that to the extent his claims are “reduced to purely equitable actions, he submits his case to the sound discretion of the Court.” Id. As noted above, Plaintiffs Complaint does not allege any state common law claims and only makes claims for equitable relief under ERISA. Accordingly, I conclude that Plaintiff is not entitled to a trial by jury and recommend that the Court strike Plaintiffs jury trial demand. See Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 24 n. 4 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); and Canis v. Coca-Cola Enter., Inc., 49
holding that claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under  1132a1b holding that federal common law governs equitable remedies available under erisa holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa holding in dicta that a jury trial is not available for claims under erisa