Mabie v. Kaplan
This is the third appeal arising from actions brought by Michele Mabie, Ashley Burkhart, Amanda Duran, Elizabeth Subia, Jessica L. Thompson and other named plaintiffs (collectively Respondents) against defendants Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (doing business as Maric College) Kaplan, Inc., and Michael L. Seifert (collectively Maric) that allege Maric violated California's unfair competition laws (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) and Education Code, section 94700 et seq.
Court ruled in a nonpublished opinion, Fletcher et al. v. Quest Education Corp.[1](March 30, 2004, D041048) (Fletcher), the arbitration provision in the parties' contracts was not unconscionable. Fletcher is presently in arbitration regarding claims for damages.
Court ruled in another nonpublished opinion, Mabie et al. v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, et al. (June 10, 2005, D043979) (Mabie I), that the trial court properly denied Maric's motion to compel arbitration because the plaintiffs were not signatories or third-party beneficiaries to contracts containing applicable arbitration provisions.
In the present appeal, Maric challenges the trial court's denial of its petition to compel arbitration and stay the litigation in the consolidated action brought by the Respondents none of whom signed contracts with arbitration provisions. Maric contends the trial court erroneously "allow[ed] respondents to avoid arbitration by pleading a class definition limited to students 'who did not agree to arbitrate;' " and, under Code of Civil Procedure,[2]section 1281.4, litigation should be stayed pending the outcome of the Fletcher arbitration. Court affirm the trial court's order.
Comments on Mabie v. Kaplan