Wave Goodbye to Waivers of Jury Trials
August 31, 2005
In a decision that all franchisors need to note, on Aug. 4, 2005 the California Supreme Court ruled that pre-dispute waivers of a jury trial in a civil matter are unconstitutional under the California constitution. Many commercial agreements include a pre-dispute waiver of a jury trial so that businesses that prefer not to submit disputes to arbitration can elect to litigate claims and have their disputes heard by a judge rather than submit to a jury trial. The high court in <i>Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers)</i>, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 8586, 4 (2005), affirmed an appellate court's decision to reject the 1991 appellate court decision upholding pre-dispute waivers of jury trials in <i>Trizec Properties Inc. v. Superior Court</i>, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 (1991). This case will alter the way commercial contracts — from joint venture agreements, to franchise agreements, real estate leases and other contracts — are written. The <i>Grafton</i> decision is a call to California-based franchisors, and franchisors with franchises in California, to take stock of their decisions and provisions regarding dispute resolution.
How 7-Eleven Developed a New System-Wide Franchise Agreement: Process and Results
August 31, 2005
In the first installment, published in July, we provided the background and general arrangements and actions 7-Eleven used in developing a new franchise agreement for virtually its entire 3400-store franchise system. In this installment, we discuss what occurred and why and what was learned from this effort. Please refer to the first installment for defined terms.
After Lawrence
August 31, 2005
The idea for a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not suddenly dawn upon Senate Republicans in the summer of 2004, when debate on the amendment began in earnest on the Senate floor. Despite having passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, conservatives have long worried about what they believe to be threats to traditional heterosexual marriage posed by campaigners for equal rights and the courts. Their fears peaked in 2003, when the courts struck twice: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> that state homosexual sodomy laws are unconstitutional, while the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in <i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i> ordered state officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects Marriage Equality
August 31, 2005
In a 2-1 decision, the New Jersey Superior Court-Appellate Division rendered a decision in the appeal of <i>Lewis v. Harris</i>, 378 N.J.Super. 168, 875 A.2d. 259 (App.Div.2005) that the "statutory limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex does not violate the New Jersey Constitution." Although disappointing, the decision was not unexpected and, because there is a dissenting opinion, under New Jersey Rules of Court there is an automatic right of appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The notice of appeal has been filed, and as of this writing the parties awaited a briefing schedule. he majority opinions were summarized in last month's issue. The dissenting opinion is summarized in this article.
Same-Sex, Gay Adoption Panelists See Progress Ahead
August 31, 2005
In a recent panel discussion, scholars who disagree about the advisability of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children nonetheless concurred that courts are likely to maintain their support of adoption and child custody by LGBT couples. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), a progressive organization of attorneys and legal scholars, brought together a panel of noted experts on LGBT laws to discuss developments in adoption and custody, and what they might mean for broader rights for same-sex couples and individuals.
News Briefs
August 31, 2005
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Protecting Against the Current Real Estate Market
August 31, 2005
For the past several months there has been a steady drumbeat in the press about the overheated real estate market. Is it a case of modern-day tulip mania or merely a reflection of the laws of supply and demand? Will prices continue to surge or is there a crash looming? Although macro economic factors doubtless are at play, nevertheless there has been little discussion of what action, if any, individual co-op and condo boards, buyers and owners can or should take, as a matter of law or policy, to protect their respective interests and preserve the stability of their buildings in this environment.
Index
August 31, 2005
Everything contained in this month's issue in an easy-to-read format.
Landlord & Tenant
August 31, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
