Some CC&Rs require that all disputes be settled by a general judicial reference. In the absence of a member`s right to a jury trial, the courts struck down these provisions. In a general context, a private judge may “hear and decide some or all of the issues in an act or proceeding” and send all the powers of a sitting judge. [Section 638(a)) The judge`s decision, after confirmation by the Tribunal, gives rise to a court decision, that is. On a binding judgment. [Section 644(a)) The main disadvantages of court reference are this: If you do business with California consumers and rely on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to settle disputes, you may need to reconsider your options. Recent California Supreme Court decisions have left two of the ADR options most commonly used in consumer contracts today in doubt: arbitration and “dropping jury trials.” In this context, it may be time to consider a “judicial reference” in California. California law allows parties to avoid a jury trial by contractually choosing to decide future disputes through arbitration or court reference. While arbitration procedures are better known, the judicial reference also offers an alternative to litigation. The judicial reference offers several advantages, including speed, comfort and avoidance of a jury trial. The California Supreme Court has ruled that waiver statements for jurors are not enforceable prior to litigation. See Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.
4th 944 (2005). However, court referrals and arbitration proceedings are permitted, as the California legislature has adopted a comprehensive system that allows these forms of alternative dispute resolution and provides public judicial resources. Id., at 964-965. use of a smaller font than the rest of the agreement; Printing the provision, so it is physically difficult to read California law, allows changes to the provisions as long as the activation clause in the original customer account agreement authorizes the change. On the one hand, in Perdue v. Crocker National Bank, 38 Cal.3d 913 (1985), the California Supreme Court considered whether a signature card signed by each customer at the time of opening a current account could include a subsequent amending provision adding a fee for NSF checks. Lost is the fixation that the signature card was a contract authorizing the subsequent collection of NSF fees “subject to the bank`s obligation to exercise good faith and good management when setting or varying such fees.” (Id., at s. . . .