U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2017

Antonio Suarez v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 18, 2017 · Jordan, Carnes, Schlesinger

688 F. App'x 777

Counsel

Luis Antonio Cabassa, Steven G. Wen-zel, Brandon Hill, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr., Theane Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Courtney B. Wilson, Littler Mendelson, PC, Miami, FL, Anthony J. Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Orlando, FL, Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Ring-Dowell, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee, Kevin Patrick Flanagan, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Litigation, Washington, DC, Paul A. Thomas, National Labor Relations Board, Contempt, Compliance, and Special Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for National Labor Relations Board

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Gray v. Uber, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2019)
Smythe v. Uber Techs., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellants, who previously worked as drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc., sued Uber asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq,, the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501,201 et seq. When Uber moved to compel arbitration in the district court, the drivers opposed the motion on the ground that the entire written agreement they had entered into was unconscionable under both California and Florida law.

Now, on appeal, the drivers assert three new arguments. They argue that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. § 1, that the delegation clause is inapplicable because of the FAA exemption, and that the class waiver in Uber’s software agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act under 29 U.S.C. § 157. In exercise of our.discretion, we choose not to address these arguments, which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing “a case that is wholly different” from the case litigated below). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to compel arbitration.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.