decision, I have omitted from my opinion any discussion of the implications *920of the trial court’s actions on the constitutional jury trial guarantee. I write separately to express my concern regarding this issue.
Article I, section 16 of the California Constitution gives to all its citizens the inviolate right to trial by jury. This right has been long protected and cherished in our jurisprudence.
The jury system is an essential part of our courts’ ability to safeguard the rule of law in the face of constant challenges to the authority of that fundamental principle. In fact, our reliance on, and confidence in, the institution of the jury is primarily a function of the key role that the jury system plays in protecting our citizens against the unchecked powers of government, and concomitantly in providing a critical counterbalance to the power and persuasiveness of lawyers and judges.
The framers of our federal and state Constitutions were “reluctan[t] to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges.” (Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 156 [20 L.Ed.2d 491, 500, 88 S.Ct. 1444].) The guarantee of a jury trial, therefore, reflects a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. On the most general level then, the function of the jury is to safeguard the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of official power. (See Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 U.S. 78, 87 [26 L.Ed.2d 446, 453, 90 S.Ct. 1893].)
This function finds expression in, and is reinforced by, the principles governing the right to trial by jury. Jury service provides one of the few opportunities for an ordinary citizen to participate in the affairs of his or her government. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch’s definition of “decision maker” includes both judges and jurors and is not limited to elected or appointed officials.
Jurors are an integral part of the judicial process. As a result, the jury system not only provides an important civic experience for the citizen, but also imbues the entire judicial process with a sense of legitimacy. The jury’s verdict ensures that the outcome of the trial will be acceptable to a substantial portion of the community. It gives to all adult citizens the opportunity to be self-governing.
Indeed, in recent years the requirement of community participation has been amplified to include the demand for a more representative cross-section of the community in jury decision-making (Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 99 S.Ct. 664]). As the United States Supreme Court declared in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) 435 U.S. 223, 236-237 [55 *921L.Ed.2d 234, 244, 98 S.Ct. 1029], “meaningful community participation cannot be attained with the exclusion of minorities or other identifiable groups from jury service.” All citizens, without regard to wealth, occupation, or other indicia of status must be deemed eligible to serve as jurors. The fulfillment of this condition highlights another major contribution of the jury. A representative jury brings with it a sense of justice that embodies the customs of all the community from which it was selected.
The value of the jury in representing the community’s mores is inestimable. It furnishes a degree of flexibility to the system by tempering the sometimes rigid procedural and substantive requirements of the law with the common sense of the community at large. This characteristic makes the institution of the jury a remarkable device for insuring that any general rule of law can be shaped to ensure justice in each individual case.
Dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order does not always violate the right to a jury trial.1 The dismissal power is narrowly circumscribed because every litigant must be afforded the opportunity to present his claims before a jury of his peers. (Cf. Dorsey v. Barba (1952) 38 Cal.2d 350, 355-356 [240 P.2d 604].) The trial court denied appellant that opportunity here. Therefore, we must critically examine the purposes and policies underlying the involuntary dismissal power to determine whether the trial court’s action violated appellant’s right to a jury trial.
In a civil action, the plaintiff has a duty to comply with court orders and a duty to prosecute his case in a diligent manner. (See Oberkotter v. Spreckels (1923) 64 Cal.App. 470, 473 [221 P. 698].) A breach of either duty in most jurisdictions can result in the dismissal of the complaint.2 As the party seeking relief, the duty to prosecute with diligence and in accordance with court orders rests with the plaintiff. “‘[N]o affirmative duty to do more than meet the plaintiff step by step is cast on the defendant.’” (Knight v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 923, 929 [3 Cal.Rptr. 600], quoting Gunner v. Van Ness Garage (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 345, 347 [310 P.2d 32]; accord, Abner Corp., Inc. v. Lushing (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 597, 606 [28 Cal.Rptr. 207].)
*922By seeking to resolve the dispute in a judicial forum, the plaintiff acknowledges the obligations that accompany his request. The plaintiff initiates the proceedings in order to vindicate his rights. In so doing, he or she accepts the responsibility of abiding by rules designed to facilitate the orderly and equitable resolution of the dispute.
The authority of a trial court to dismiss sua sponte for disobedience or lack of prosecution is founded on this conception of the judicial process. The dismissal sanction provides the courts with the power to “manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” (Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 [8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738, 82 S.Ct. 1386]) and in this way serves “the needs of court[s] in . . . preserving respect for integrity of [their] internal procedures . . . .” (Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc. (8th Cir. 1976) 539 F.2d 1191, 1193.)
Although the practice varies from court to court at both the state and federal levels, involuntary dismissal is most frequently employed where the conduct of the plaintiff demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the fact-gathering and disclosure process, thereby impeding the determination of the substantive rights of the parties.
In many of these cases, dismissals have been affirmed because the plaintiff exhibits a reluctance to assist in any disclosure of facts or issues or to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. (See, e.g., Darms v. McCulloch Oil Corp. (8th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 490, 495 [dismissal affirmed where plaintiffs refused to put on any evidence although two years had elapsed since the denial of class certification]; Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Com’n (9th Cir. 1971) 442 F.2d 1047, 1053-1054 [dismissal affirmed where plaintiff refused to comply for 11 months with the court’s order that he set forth with specificity the acts he claimed formed the basis of his cause of action].)
The sanction of dismissal with prejudice is a quid pro quo for a plaintiff’s intransigence. Having exercised his rights to utilize the forum, it is the plaintiff’s own dilatory or disobedient conduct in prosecuting a lawsuit that forecloses his opportunity to have his rights determined upon the merits.
The considerations underlying the employment of this involuntary dismissal power in the trial context do not justify a dismissal entered after a refusal to cooperate in a judicially mandated arbitration proceeding. In contrast to dismissals ordered pursuant to rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and section 583.420 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court in the present case did not dismiss petitioner’s action as punishment *923for his intransigence or lack of diligence in the trial court, but for his conduct in another forum.
An involuntary dismissal under rule 41(b) is only considered appropriate where, after the complaint has been filed and proceedings begun in the trial court, the plaintiff has repeatedly abused the system by engaging in persistent contumacious behavior. The operation of rule 41(b), therefore, is actually quite limited; once the litigation process has started, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the right to pursue his claim in court unless his conduct manifests an intent to abandon his pursuit of a jury trial. To permit a dismissal with prejudice under any other circumstances would seriously burden the “substantial rights” of the litigant. (Cf. Pond v. Braniff Airways, Incorporated (5th Cir. 1972) 453 F.2d 347, 349.)
The circumstances here differ markedly from those evident in rule 41(b) dismissals. Appellant was not only denied the protections normally attendant upon an order of involuntary dismissal, but was precluded from moving the proceedings to the trial court altogether. Unlike the noncomplying parties in the typical dismissal situation, appellant’s actions did not impede the litigation process. He stood ready to prove his allegations while concomitantly abiding by the rules pertaining to conduct of a jury trial. His action was dismissed with prejudice before he had a chance to present any evidence in court to support his claims.
Under these facts, the considerations invoked when a plaintiff refuses to prosecute his claims in the trial court are not present. Dismissal here would not serve the purposes of involuntary dismissals in other contexts. The policy of maintaining the integrity of internal court procedures is not applicable where, as here, the plaintiff’s conduct affected a wholly different forum.
Moreover, the compulsory arbitration proceeding cannot operate as a substitute for the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. The current scheme does not embody any of the features of the jury system deemed essential to the political viability of our legal system. Thus, the analogy implicitly accepted by the trial court here between a judicially mandated arbitration proceeding and a court proceeding does not support the drastic foreclosure of rights that an unconditional dismissal represents.
The judicial arbitration statute was enacted as an alternative to the traditional method of dispute resolution with the hope that it might help offset a seemingly ever increasing judicial workload. In responding to the demand for improving the efficient resolution of small civil claims, the Legislature made clear that the procedures employed should be simple, economical, *924and expedient. (See § 1141.10, subds. (b)(1) and (2).) The arbitration scheme, however, was not intended entirely to supplant traditional trial proceedings.
As with other court-annexed arbitration systems,3 the scheme in this state provides for a hearing that is considerably less formal than a trial in a court of law. The arbitrator’s powers are expressly limited to nine listed functions. The most important are: (1) to permit testimony to be offered by deposition; (2) to permit evidence to be offered and introduced as provided in the rules; (3) to rule on the admissibility and relevancy of evidence offered; (4) to decide the law and facts of the case and to make an award accordingly; and (5) to award costs, not to exceed the statutory cost of the suit. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1614(a).)
All disputes regarding procedural, evidentiary, or discovery matters beyond the scope of these powers must be brought to the attention of the supervising court. (Ibid.) In addition, the rules of evidence governing civil actions apply only partially to judicial arbitration. The Evidence Code is relaxed in several areas permitting the introduction of certain forms of written testimony and documentary evidence not admissible in court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1613.)
Under the present scheme, any person may serve as an arbitrator if selected by the parties. (§ 1141.18.) Legal training is not a prerequisite because arbitrators need not conform their decisions to judicial precedent. Furthermore, the arbitrator is not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1615(a)), and no official record of the proceeding need be kept. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1614(b).)
These characteristics of the compulsory arbitration scheme provide more than adequate proof that the system was not intended to be a substitute for a judicial determination on the merits in small civil cases. Arbitrators have limited powers and are free to disregard legal precedent. Procedural safeguards required in court proceedings are relaxed considerably in arbitration proceedings.
More significantly, the Legislature unconditionally provided for a trial de novo on demand following arbitration. The Legislature recognized the constitutional problems that could arise if the arbitration hearing were to be construed as a substitute for a judicially supervised trial.
*925The right to trial by an impartial jury is one of the oldest guarantees in the Constitution. It plays a fundamental role in maintaining our intricate system of governmental checks and balances by safeguarding our citizens against arbitrary or excessive governmental action, reinforcing personal commitment to society through concrete participation in an important governmental function, and permitting the infusion of the commonsense judgment of laymen into an often rigid judicial process. Dedication to these concepts demands that the jury system remain a vital part of the American judicial system.
In searching for instant solutions to increasingly complex social and economic problems, various modifications of the legal process have been suggested. The court-annexed arbitration scheme is one of the results of efforts in recent years to streamline court procedures, relieve congestion of court calendars, and reduce expenditures. (See § 1141.10.)
Although complexity, congestion, delay, and expense are legitimate concerns, these factors have never justified the sacrifice of fundamental rights. Efforts to expedite and efficiently administer the legal process are commendable. However, our interest in economy and speed must be tempered by the recognition that certain fundamental institutions are so essential to our system of justice that we cannot change them drastically without dramatically altering the foundation of the rule of law and the basic shape of our governmental structure.
Despite its duty to “zealously” preserve the right to jury trial (Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648, 654 [141 Cal.Rptr. 604]), the trial court sacrificed this fundamental right in favor of its concerns with administrative efficiency. These concerns cannot support the drastic remedy of eliminating the long-standing practice of providing jury trials in all legal actions. (See People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal.2d 283, 299 [231 P.2d 832].) This right is “so fundamental and sacred to the citizen . . . [that it] should be jealously guarded by the courts.” (Jacob v. New York (1942) 315 U.S. 752, 753 [86 L.Ed. 1166, 1168, 62 S.Ct. 854].)
Penalizing a litigant by dismissing his action for failure to present evidence at a compulsory arbitration proceeding places too high a premium on achieving the goals of expediency and efficiency. An involuntary dismissal may clear the dockets of troublesome cases, but it demonstrates a strikingly indifferent attitude toward the fundamental constitutional right to a trial by jury.
The state’s interest in providing a forum for the quick resolution of relatively small civil claims cannot overcome appellant’s right to a jury trial. *926“ [Tjrifling economies . . . have not generally been thought sufficient reason for abandoning our great constitutional safeguards aimed at protecting freedom and other basic human rights of incalculable value.” (Green v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 165, 216 [2 L.Ed.2d 672, 706, 78 S.Ct. 632] (dis. opn. of Black, J.).)
I would therefore hold that the use of involuntary dismissals as a sanction to ensure full participation in judicially mandated arbitration proceedings creates an unconstitutional burden on a litigant’s right to a jury trial.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 permits the court to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution after the trial has commenced provided that one of several enumerated conditions has occurred. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(b) permits a trial court to dismiss an action involuntarily when the plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the court.
Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Many jurisdictions have a statute or rule of procedure that authorizes dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with court order or both. (See, e.g., Alaska Rules Civ. Proc., § 41(b), (e); Ariz: Rules Civ. Proc., § 41(b); Fla. Rules Civ. Proc., § 1.420(b), (e).)
See Snow & Abramson, Alternative to Litigation: Court-Annexed Arbitration (1983) 20 Cal. Western L.Rev. 43 for a comparison and analysis of the current California and Pennsylvania arbitration schemes.