Not long ago, the California legislature enacted, and the outgoing Governator signed, new legislation allowing for "expedited jury trials." If the parties stipulated to it, they would get a one day jury trial, with an hour to pick a jury and three hours for each side to put on a case. There'd be no appeal and not much in the way of post-trial motions. This mechanism was presumably designed for small cases. But the parties can stipulate to use the process for any case of any size. The parties can also make a high-low deal (something they are free to do now, for that matter) with a floor for the planitiff and a ceiling for the defendant.
Clearly the idea here is to provide a meaningful forum for the trial of cases that are too small for a traditional jury trial to make any economic sense.
Will this make any difference? I have my doubts, at least for garden variety tort cases. Why would a defendant, no matter what size the case, be willing to shortcut the jury trial process if the plaintiff won't voluntarily limit the exposure? And why would the plaintiff want to voluntarily take the high end out of the case, even if the liklihood of a high end outcome is pretty remote?
As things stand, California has a process for handling small cases: non-binding judicial arbitration. I get appointed as an arbitrator on these cases (which typically involve the fascinating fact patter of one vehicle running into another) 5 or 6 times a year. Hearings typically take about an hour, and I send out a ruling (which is not effective unless both sides accept it) the same day.
One of two things happens when I get appointed an arbitrator: the case settles before the arbitration, so my getting appointed and scheduling the case for hearing has the same effect as an approaching trial date usually has. Or the plaintiff attorney just wants to get through the process so he or she can reject the award, get a trial scheduled, and find out how much money the defendant is really willing to pay. So half the time, scheuling a hearing causes the case to settle without further proceedings. The other half, it's just a bump in the road to settlement. I'm not at all sure how a one-day jury trial changes things for the good.
Also, I'm a little skeptical about the one day trial with an hour of jury selection and 6 hours of testimony (not to mention instructing the jury, closing argument, opening statement, deliberation, etc.). The typical trial day in most of our urban courts runs from 9:00 a.m. to noon and 1:30 to 4:30 with two fifteen minute breaks. That's five and a half hours. But plenty of courts have shorter trial days than that, and in some of the small rural counties where the judges both try cases and manage calendars, three to four per day hours isn't unusual. So in those courts, the one day trial becomes a full two days or more. Back in the good old days, when we had a municipal court for small cases, 2 - 3 day regular jury trials weren't all that unusual.
Still, it will be interesting to see if insurers and soft-tissue personal injury plaintiffs take advantage of the new system. Even more interesting will be if litigants with larger cases but not many issues sometimes give it a try. My guess in both cases is no.
By the way, in the spirit of simplifying the jury trial process in these "expedite" cases, the State Judicial Counsel is adopting some rules that will apply. The document setting out these rules, and the reasons for them, is here. A mere seventy pages long.
Comments