a claim for interest or court costs and attorney fees available under section 8371. I note the Seventh Amendment does not grant a party the right to submit equitable claims to a jury merely because legal claims also are present. See Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin, P.A., 22 F.3d 1242, 1245 (3d Cir.1994) (no jury right attaches to equitable claims), petition for cert. denied — U.S. Corp., — , 115 S.Ct. 508, 130 L.Ed.2d 416 (1994); see, e.g., Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 508, 79 S.Ct. 948, 955, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959) (instructing that a district court should permit a jury to resolve legal claims presented in an action prior to the court ruling on the equitable claims); but cf., Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963) (<HOLDING>). In its brief, plaintiff concedes — and I
holding  in the context of admiralty law  that when a suit would become unnecessarily complicated if part is tried by a jury and part by a judge only one trier of fact should be used for the trial of what is essentially one lawsuit to settle one claim split conceptually into separate parts because of historical developments holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed holding that the defendants burden at this stage is one of production not one of persuasion