predispute jury trial waiver in California

2025Plaintiff analogizes the forum selection clause to a predispute jury trial waiver, which we held was unenforceable in Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at page 950 .

2025(See Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 967 [emphasizing that “it is for the Legislature, not this court, to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a predispute waiver of jury trial will be enforceable in this state”].) While California courts cannot recognize a predispute jury trial waiver as valid, neither the Constitution nor the relevant statutes declare all such waivers void.6 6 These observations concerning the jury trial right are consistent with the federal appellate court’s reasoning and conclusion in County of Orange, supra, 784 F.3d 520 .

2019(Areso v. CarMax, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 996, 1006 [“Mere observations by an appellate court are dicta and not precedent, unless a statement of law was ‘necessary to the decision, and therefore binding precedent[]’ ”].) Third, it is precisely because litigation in New York may diminish Handoush’s substantive right under California law, and LFG has not met its burden to show otherwise, that the forum selection clause should not be enforced. ( Wimsatt, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1520– 1522.) Finally, LFG asserts that Handoush’s arguments are academic because he is not entitled to a jury t

2019Nonetheless, Grafton instructs that because the right to jury trial in California is a fundamental right that may only be waived as prescribed by the Legislature, courts cannot enforce predispute agreements to waive a jury trial. ( Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 953, 956; see Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1 , 13–14 (Rincon) [applying Grafton analysis to choice of law question and finding that application of New York law to permit enforcement of the predispute contractual jury waivers would be contrary to fundamental California policy].) While Califo