Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
LOS ANGELES — A growing and controversial practice whereby companies agree to waive potential jury trials in civil cases long before any dispute arises received a healthy debate by the California Supreme Court on Wednesday. But the justices gave no clear indication how they would rule. For sure, however, Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Joyce Kennard seemed strongly opposed to the practice, while Justices Ming Chin and Janice Rogers Brown appeared to believe it might actually be a boon to overburdened trial courts. “From a public policy standpoint, what’s wrong with pre-dispute jury waivers?” Chin asked San Francisco attorney Jerome Falk Jr., who was arguing against them. “What would happen if every case that was filed was tried by jury? Wouldn’t that be impossible?” George, meanwhile, interrogated San Francisco attorney Daniel Kolkey, a former justice on Sacramento’s Third District Court of Appeal who favors waivers, by asking how parties could waive a jury trial in litigation that doesn’t yet exist. “How can you have an intelligent waiver if you don’t know there is going to be litigation?” he demanded. The swing votes will come from Justices Marvin Baxter and Carlos Moreno, as well as Second District Justice Vaino Spencer, sitting in for Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, who recused herself. None of the three tipped their hands, with Moreno and Spencer asking no questions.
Sour Reception for Lemon Law CaseLOS ANGELES — Buyer beware.The California Supreme Court seemed unwilling on Wednesday to extend the state’s generous lemon law protections to faulty vehicles bought in other states.“Under your interpretation, a resident of Nevada who buys in Nevada could have the benefits of the lemon law of California,” Justice Marvin Baxter told Bellflower attorney Michael Humphries during oral arguments. “What would ever motivate a California legislator to impose that type of burden on California businesses to benefit an out-of-state resident who purchases out of state?”Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Joyce Kennard added to Humphries’ grief by saying that the lemon law makes it abundantly clear that its protections apply only to vehicles “sold in this state.”“If we agree with you,” Kennard stated, “this becomes surplusage.”The case began when Edward and Sandi Cox bought a Winnebago motor home equipped with a Cummins Inc. engine in Idaho, then drove it home to Riverside. After experiencing irreparable problems with the vehicle, they sued both companies for allegedly violating a provision of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act that requires proper maintenance or replacement of a malfunctioning vehicle.Riverside County Superior Court Judge Dallas Holmes denied Winnebago and Cummins’ summary judgment motion, but Riverside’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in 2003, saying that the act can apply to goods sold outside California as long as successful repair attempts by the manufacturer are made inside the state.The Supreme Court justices seemed ready to remand Wednesday, with a couple of them pointing out that even the legislative analyst and the author of the legislation, former state Sen. Alfred Song, had written letters saying the lemon law wouldn’t have any impact on vehicles bought out of state.They also noted prior rulings holding a presumption against legislation that would have extra-territorial effects.Cummins was represented by Tami Smason, of Los Angeles’ Foley & Lardner, while Winnebago was defended by Thomas Murphy, a partner in Mission Viejo’s Sutton & Murphy.A ruling in Cummins v. Superior Court (Cox), S117726, is expected within 90 days.– Mike McKee

Grafton Partners and Allied Capital Partners sued PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2002, claiming that PwC had breached its contract and violated professional duties by not informing them during an audit of their 1998 financial statements that PinnFund U.S.A. Inc. — in which both companies had invested — had been involved in an illegal Ponzi scheme. While acting as a national mortgage lending business, the companies argue, PinnFund had siphoned off millions of dollars in phony commissions. Grafton and Allied Capital sought a jury trial, but Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw denied it because all parties had signed a pre-dispute jury waiver agreement when PwC had been contracted to perform the audit in 1999. Last year, San Francisco’s First District reversed, ruling that the state Constitution “reflects an unwavering commitment” to a trial by jury and that the Legislature has limited consensual waivers to those that “are both executed and filed during the pendency of the lawsuit.” During Wednesday’s hearing, Kolkey, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s San Francisco office who represented PwC, argued that the court had misunderstood the clear language of Civil Code of Procedure � 631(d)(2), which provides for the waiver of a jury trial “by written consent filed with the clerk or judge.” Kolkey argued that nothing suggests that the written consent must be filed at any particular time to be effective. “At the time you waive the jury, you have to be a party,” he told the justices, “and the waiver is effectuated when you file it.” The chief justice didn’t agree, calling Kolkey’s reasoning “circular.” “What you’re saying is [the waiver] applies to parties to the litigation when there was no litigation,” George said. “How can that be deemed to be an intelligent waiver?” Justice Joyce Kennard jumped in by pointing to Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 17 Cal.3d 699, a 29-year-old ruling in which the court took up waivers in the arbitration setting. “Isn’t there a requirement of a pending action?” Kennard asked Kolkey. “And way back in 1976, we said ‘Yep.’” Falk, a partner at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin who represented Grafton Partners, argued that the Legislature has never once thought about allowing pre-dispute jury waivers, instead making it clear that a pending action was necessary before written consent could be filed with the court. Justice Brown weighed in by saying it appeared that the Legislature had never added a “temporal element” to the statute in question, so why should the high court? “It really doesn’t say anything about when you execute it,” she said. Falk argued that if there are ambiguities, they “must be resolved in favor of trial by jury” because of the California Constitution’s strong commitment to that policy. A ruling in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers), S123344, is expected within 90 days.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.