California federal district court grants motion to deny class certification filed by Simmonds & Narita client, effectively ending case alleging claims under California’s Karnette Act
In a putative class action filed in the Northern District of California, the plaintiff alleged that she entered into a rental-purchase agreement with Simmonds & Narita’s client in connection with the acquisition of home furnishings. Plaintiff asserted the agreement failed to disclose a processing fee, instead lumping it in with the cash price of the furniture she leased, in violation of California’s Karnette Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Although the agreement plaintiff executed contained an arbitration clause that included a jury-trial and a class action waiver, plaintiff timely exercised her right to opt out of the arbitration agreement. The defendant moved to deny class certification, as allowed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit precedent. The District Court granted the motion, agreeing with defendant that plaintiff – one of only three people who opted out of the arbitration agreement – could not represent a class of individuals that were subject to the mandatory arbitration agreement and class action waiver.