Konig v. U-Haul Co. of California
Plaintiff, Ron Konig, appeals from orders compelling arbitration and enforcing a class action waiver. We previously issued issue an opinion affirming both orders. (Konig v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1243, review granted Feb. 28, 2007, S149883.) Our Supreme court has remanded the cause to us with directions to reconsider our opinion in light of Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443. The parties did not file any papers within the time frames specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(b). The enforceability of the class action waiver is controlled by the analysis in Gentry v. Superior Court, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pages 453-466. Thus, the trial court is to revaluate the validity of the class action waiver. The order compelling arbitration is affirmed. The order enforcing the class action waiver is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to reconsider the order enforcing the class action waiver in light of Gentry v. Superior Court, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pages 453-466.
This court never dealt with the order to compel arbitration. Thus, at this stage, we cannot affirm that order. Compelling plaintiff to arbitrate effectively eliminates him as a class representative and thus the class action in this case. Accordingly, remanding this case would accomplish nothing and would be inconsistent with the Supreme Courts order. I would reverse based on my dissenting opinion in this case (Konig v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 244, 253, review granted February 28, 2007, S149883), and the opinion in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.
Comments on Konig v. U-Haul Co. of California