InCompass IT, Inc., et al. v. XO Communications Servs., et al., No. 12-2829 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseInCompass filed suit against XO asserting a single claim of promissory estoppel based on a former XO employee's alleged oral promise to enter into a multi-year lease with InCompass. InCompass appealed the district court's grant of XO's motion to strike InCompass's jury trial demand. In light of InCompass's inconsistency as to the precise measure of damages that it sought, and in light of the undeniably equitable nature of the promissory estoppel claim as a whole, the court held that InCompass's claim was properly regarded as equitable rather than legal and, consequently, InCompass was not entitled to a jury trial on its claim of promissory estoppel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Case - Diversity. In action asserting promisory-estoppel claim, district court did not err in striking jury demand: The nature of the right asserted sounds in equity, not law, as the claim asserted was an exchange of oral promises which implicated the statute of frauds and the nature of the remedy included an imprecise measure of damages, including reliance damages, which are equitable in nature.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.