We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
For years, contracting parties in California have thought they could avoid the uncertainty and expense of a jury trial by agreeing in advance that any lawsuit between them would be decided by a judge, sitting without a jury. This view was based in part on a 1991 intermediate appellate decision (Trizec Properties, inc. v. Superior Court) which upheld a pre-dispute contractual jury waiver, at least where the waiver was "clearly apparent in the contract." Last Friday, however, the California Supreme Court disapproved Trizec and held that California law does not permit pre-dispute jury waivers. See Grafton Partners, L.P. v PriceWaterHouseCoopers L.L.P., 05 C.D.O.S 6887 (August 5, 2005).
In Grafton, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) was hired to audit the books of two Grafton partnerships. PWC’s engagement letter provided that, in the event that differences concerning PWC’s services or fees could not be resolved by mutual agreement, the parties "agree not to demand a trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating to [PWC’s] services and fees for this engagement."
Three years later, Grafton sued PWC for negligence and other claims arising from PWC’s alleged failure to disclose fraudulent business practices that had been discovered during an audit. The trial court struck Grafton’s demand for a jury trial, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal decision, holding that pre-dispute jury waivers are invalid. The Court also applied its decision retrospectively, i.e., to pending cases where a party seeks to rely on a predispute waiver.
The Court relied on California’s constitutional mandate that jury waivers in civil cases must be "as prescribed by statute." Looking to the applicable statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 631), the Court found that the Legislature has authorized waivers only in certain specific instances: by failing to appear at trial or announce that a jury was required, by oral consent in open court, by failing to pay jury fees, or by written consent filed with the court. All of these provisions, however, apply only to written jury waivers entered into after a lawsuit is filed.
The Court made clear that its decision does not prevent parties from agreeing in advance to arbitrate their disputes, reasoning that the Legislature had enacted a comprehensive scheme authorizing predispute arbitration agreements. Likewise, the Court ruled that parties are free to agree in advance to a "judicial reference," where a judicial referee is appointed to determine some or all of the issues in a case.
The Landscape after Grafton
Parties whose contracts include jury waivers should review those contracts and weigh the importance of avoiding a jury trial. If avoiding a jury is paramount, parties should consider revising their contracts to provide for arbitration or judicial reference.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In United States v. Westerfield, 2013 WL 1405881 (7th Cir., Apr. 9, 2013), an Illinois lawyer, Lorie Westerfield, who worked for a title company, was charged with facilitating fraudulent real estate transfers in a mortgage fraud scheme.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice joined with French enforcement authorities to announce charges against French-based oil and gas company Total S.A.
The First Circuit has become the fourth federal court of appeals to address whether a first-filed yet insufficient complaint still qualifies as a pending action under the first-to-file rule of the False Claims Act.
Recently appointed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Mary Jo White recently testified before a House subcommittee about the SEC's budget.
We wrote in February about the issue pending before the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely: whether police can dispense with a search warrant and draw blood from an individual suspected of driving while intoxicated.
On May 7, 2013, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed extraordinary criminal charges against two registered representatives of a U.S. broker-dealer and a high-level Venezuelan government official for engaging in a "Massive International Bribery Scheme".
