Representative Matters
California federal district court denies plaintiff’s motion for class certifications and grants motion to deny class certification filed by Simmonds & Narita client, in case alleging client’s Retail Installment Sales Agreement program violates California law
In a putative class action filed in the Northern District of California, the plaintiff alleged that when purchasing furniture from a local retailer, she signed a purchase order but was not informed that her purchase was being financed by the defendant nor was she informed of the financing terms. Plaintiff contended that, rather than entering into a retail installment sales agreement, she actually entered into a loan with an unconscionable interest rate. After engaging in extensive discovery, plaintiff moved to certify a class, and defendant moved to deny class certification. The District Court agreed with defendant that, because plaintiff maintained she had not signed the agreement, which contained an arbitration clause precluding class actions and jury trials, she could not represent her proposed class, as all of the putative class members were subject to the arbitration provision. In so doing, the court joined other courts within the Ninth Circuit holding that plaintiffs who were not (or contended they were not) subject to an arbitration agreement could not represent a class of persons who were.
<< previous | next >>