Appellant student sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed her complaint for damages against respondent university for its failure to complete instruction of courses taken by appellant.
Table of Contents
Overview
Appellant student enrolled in respondent university for the purpose of concluding her college education and becoming fully qualified in the fields of gerontology and sociology. Respondent professors refused to complete courses in appellant’s field of study because of a faculty strike. Appellant brought suit for damages against respondents for breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, constructive fraud, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of trust, and conspiracy. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed appellant’s complaint. Appellant sought review and the court reversed as to all respondents except one of the professors. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained a demurrer to the original complaint without leave to amend where disclosures on the face of the complaint did not point to its being incapable of amendment. The court addressed the sufficiency of each of appellant’s admittedly novel allegations as set forth in her complaint and instructed her, in the interests of justice, as to the proper manner in which the allegations should be made.
Outcome
The court reversed the dismissal of appellant student’s complaint without leave to amend, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing amendments to the complaint, since certain of her allegations were capable of amendment to overcome the demurrer of respondents, a university and professors. The parties were counseled by a corporate attorneys for the civil litigation.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff customer challenged the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which determined the change of terms provision in the original account agreements between plaintiffs and defendant bank permitted the addition of an alternative dispute resolution clause, and that the new provision was enforceable.
Overview
Plaintiff customers challenge the validity of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause which defendant bank sought to add to existing account agreements between itself and its deposit account and credit card account customers by sending those customers an insert with their monthly account statements, notifying them of the new term. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant, ruling that the change of terms provision in the original account agreements permitted the addition of the ADR clause, and that the new provision was enforceable because it was not unfair or unconscionable and was consistent with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reversed the decision of the trial court because the court held that the clause was not a part of defendant’s contract with plaintiffs and it could not be enforced against them.
Outcome
The court reversed the decision of the trial court that validated an alternative dispute resolution clause which defendant bank sought to add to existing account agreements because the court held that the alternative dispute resolution clause was not a part of defendant’s contract with plaintiff customers and was not enforceable against them.
