|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEE v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
PATRICIA LEE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES, Defendant and Appellant.
No. G042174.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.
Filed December 22, 2010.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSOPINIONMOORE, J. This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of the second petition to compel arbitration filed by Southern California University for Professional Studies (SCUPS) in this case and from the court's order certifying a class action. In the appeal from the denial of SCUPS's first motion to compel arbitration, we held that simply because some members of a potential class (not including the named plaintiff) signed an arbitration agreement, it was improper to require those who did not sign such an agreement to arbitrate their claims. (Lee v. Southern California University for Professional Studies (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 782, 784 (Lee I).) While this case has been through many procedural maneuverings since, the trial court ultimately certified a class that only included students who did not sign arbitration agreements. We conclude this was not an abuse of discretion and the class was properly certified. Given the composition of the class, no students who signed arbitration agreements were before the court, and the motion to compel arbitration was therefore properly denied. IFACTS
1. Education Code section 94820 (part of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989), which became inoperative on July 1, 2007, and was repealed on January 1, 2008. (Former Ed. Code §§ 94999, 94820.) The California Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act of 2009, which took effect on January 1, 2010, included a savings clause for claims under the former statutory scheme. (Ed. Code, § 94809.5 ["(a) For any claims that a student had based on a violation of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 on or before June 30, 2007. . . . [¶] (b) All claims described in subdivision (a) . . . including those contained in a lawsuit or other legal action, shall be determined or adjudicated based on the law that was in effect when the violations or events took place, even though those provisions have become inoperative, been repealed, or otherwise expired"].) 2. Subsequent code references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. We may look to federal authorities for guidance on matters involving class action procedures. (Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 644, 656, fn.7.) 4. This argument — that SCUPS may be subject to multiple actions and multiple judgments — contradicts its earlier claim that the students who are not part of the certified class will be precluded from bringing any action, arbitration or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|