Opinion
No. 132 A152137
04-06-2016
Shannon GOZZI, et al., Plaintiffs, and Jennifer ADAMS, fka Jennifer Schuster, and Nathan Surrett, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WESTERN CULINARY INSTITUTE, LTD; and Career Education Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Stephen F. English, Thomas R. Johnson, Heidee Stoller, Perkins Coie LLP, Jeff Scott, and Greenberg Traurig LLP, for petition. Maureen Leonard for response.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
080303530; Richard C. Baldwin, Judge. On petition for reconsideration filed February 4, 2016; and response filed February 9, 2016. Opinion filed January 21, 2016. 276 Or App 1, ___ P3d ___. Stephen F. English, Thomas R. Johnson, Heidee Stoller, Perkins Coie LLP, Jeff Scott, and Greenberg Traurig LLP, for petition. Maureen Leonard for response. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
PER CURIAM
Defendants Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and its parent company, Career Education Corporation, petition for reconsideration of our opinion in Gozzi v . Western Culinary Institute, Ltd., 276 Or App 1, ___ P3d ___ (2016). Specifically, defendants urge us to reconsider one sentence in the opinion to clarify whether we rejected their second assignment on the merits. We grant reconsideration and modify our opinion to delete the following sentence: "We reject without discussion defendants' second assignment of error, challenging the class itself, but address their contention, asserted in their first assignment of error, that a provision in the arbitration agreements delegates arbitrability and enforceability of the arbitration agreement to an arbitrator rather than to the court." 276 Or App at 3. In its place, we insert the following sentence: "We reject without discussion defendants' second assignment of error, challenging the class itself, because it is procedurally improper for review at this time, but we address their contention, asserted in their first assignment of error, that a provision in the arbitration agreements delegates arbitrability and enforceability of the arbitration agreement to an arbitrator rather than to the court."
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.