Thus, Sunshine and Serpa’s argument that it did so fails. Accordingly, we affirm. II. Jury Demand We review de novo the legal question of whether the district court erred in striking Sunshine and Serpa’s jury demand. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc., 561 F.3d 1181, 1186 n. 10 (11th Cir.2009). The Declaratory Judgment Act states that in a case of actual controversy a court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Declaratory Judgment Act thus “preserves the right to jury trial for both parties,” but does not create a right to a jury trial. See Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 504, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959) (<HOLDING>). As we have noted, the focal point in an
recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding denial of jury trial was harmless because evidence was insufficient to create issue of fact for submission to jury and insurer would have been entitled to directed verdict holding that if beacon would have been entitled to a jury trial in a treble damage suit against fox it cannot be deprived of that right merely because fox took advantage of the availability of declaratory relief to sue beacon first