and (c) implies that Congress intended to create legal and equitable actions, putting each into a different subsection”). Accordingly, it is clear that the disgorgement remedy the Government seeks under Section 1964(a) is equitable in nature. Second, the only court to squarely determine whether defendants have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a Section 1964(a) action brought by the Government to obtain disgorgement of the defendants’ profits, held that such a right did not exist. See United States v. Int’l Bhd., of Teamsters, et al., 708 F.Supp. 1388, 1407-08 (S.D.N.Y.1989). Third and finally, civil suits to obtain disgorgement of profits or restitution have traditionally and repeatedly been characterized as equitable in nature. See Feltner, 523 U.S. at 352, 118 S.Ct. 1279 (<HOLDING>); Terry, 494 U.S. at 570, 110 S.Ct. 1339 (“we
recognizing that wilson v garcia requires all  1983 actions to be characterized as personal injury tort actions for statute of limitations purposes recognizing that employment actions can be adverse even if such actions are subsequently withdrawn recognizing those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits recognizing a limited exception for an accounting for profits a form of equitable restitution holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions