Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court

The present case concerns what is principally a question of statutory interpretation. At issue is Code of Civil Procedure section 631, 1 a provision prescribing the six means by which parties to a civil lawsuit may waive their right to have their disputes adjudicated in a jury trial rather than in a court trial. Petitioners contend a contractual agreement that is entered into prior to any dispute arising between the contracting parties is not one of the means authorized by statute. In consequence, they claim, their predispute agreement that any lawsuit between them and real party would be adjudicated in a court trial, and not by jury trial, was unenforceable. The Court of Appeal agreed with petitioners’ contention, as do we, for the reasons that follow.

I

In March 1999, petitioners engaged real party in interest PriceWaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. (hereafter real party), an accounting firm, to audit certain accounts belonging to two of petitioners’ partnerships, Grafton Partners L.P., and Allied. On March 11, 1999, real party sent petitioners an engagement letter confirming the terms of the retainer agreement. Under the heading “[rjelease and indemnification,” the letter…

I reluctantly concur in the majority opinion. While the majority’s conclusion adheres to a strict parsing of Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (d) (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 959-960),* 1 I write separately to urge the Legislature to enact legislation expressly authorizing predispute jury waivers. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.)

As the majority acknowledges, our decision is out of step with the authority in other state and federal jurisdictions, most of which have permitted predispute jury waivers. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 965-966.) The Texas Supreme Court recently observed that “nearly every state court that has considered the issue has held that parties may agree to waive their right to trial by jury in certain future disputes, including the supreme courts in Alabama, Connecticut, Missouri, Nevada, and Rhode Island. The same is true of federal courts.” (In re Prudential Ins. of America (Tex. 2004) 148 S.W.3d 124, 132-133 [ 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1104 ], fns. omitted (In re Prudential).) Only the Supreme Court of Georgia (Bank South, N.A. v. Howard (Ga. 1994) 264 Ga. 339 [ 444 S.E.2d 799 ]), and now our court, have reached a different conclusion.

Section 631, subdivision…

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Daniel M. Kolkey, San Francisco, Scott A. Fink, and Daniel S. Floyd, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Julian W. Poon and Dominic Lanza, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest.

Deborah J. La Fetra and Timothy Sandefur, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, James B. Wright, Bernard E. Lesage, Los Angeles; Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Richard M. Kohn, Kenneth S. Ulrich; Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, Bernard Beitel, Jonathan N. Helfat and Daniel Wallen, for Commercial Finance Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca D. Eisen, Thomas M. Peterson, Brett M. Schuman and Amanda D. Smith, San Francisco, for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Leland Chan, San Francisco, for California Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

National Chamber Litigation Center, Robin S. Conrad, Stephanie A. Martz; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Donald M. Falk, Palo Alto, and Fatima Goss Graves, for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of…