|
A California appellate court refused to allow the fact that a plaintiff brought a putative class action to bind her to an arbitration agreement when the plaintiff never signed an arbitration agreement and the court had yet to certify a class.
In Lee v. Southern California University for Professional Studies, No. G036809, 2007 WL 778818 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2007), Lee, a law student at Southern California University for Professional Studies (SCUPS), was denied a tuition refund after being "administratively withdrawn" from the school. She filed a putative class action suit against the school. Neither Lee nor any other law student at the University had signed an arbitration agreement; however, most other potential class members did sign such agreements.
SCUPS argued that because some members of the potential class signed arbitration agreements, the Court should compel Lee to arbitrate her claims. In rejecting this argument, the Court noted that consent of the parties is fundamental to requiring parties to arbitrate. Since Lee never signed an arbitration agreement, she did not consent to arbitrate any potential claims.
In addition, the Court noted that a "class" had not yet been certified, and that until it was, Lee represented only herself. If certified at all, the class might ultimately consist only of law students who did not sign arbitration agreements. Given this fact, the Court held that SCUPS's assumption that an applicable arbitration agreement existed to be "completely premature."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|