does not apply. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that “a cause of action ‘arisfes] under an Act of Congress enacted’ after December 1, 1990 — and therefore is governed by § 1658’s 4-year statute of limitations-if the plaintiffs claim against the defendant was made possible by a post — 1990 enactment.” 541 U.S. at 382, 124 S.Ct. 1836 (alteration in original). This principle governs even if the new law amended a preexisting law; Congress often creates new causes of action by amending existing statutes, and § 1658(a) is not limited “to entirely new sections of the United States Code.” Id. at 381, 124 S.Ct. 1836. “What matters is the substantive effect of an enactment — the creation of new rights of action and corresponding liabilities — not the format in which it appears in t th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, USERRA established additional
holding in dicta that a jury trial is not available for claims under erisa holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim 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 claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial