U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012

Steven McArdle v. At&t Mobility LLC

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 29, 2012 · Hug, Rawlinson, Ikuta

474 F. App'x 515

Counsel

Adam Joshua Gutride, Lee Jay Yee-chang Kuo, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Sa-fier LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Donald Manwell Falk, Mayer Brown, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Joseph William Goodman, John Nadolenco, Esquire, Mayer Brown, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Archis Ashok Parasharami, Kevin Ranlett, Evan Mark Tager, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

John Doe v. Regents of The University of California (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2024)
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
Joni Winburn v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
Shackelford v. West Coast Freightline LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co. II, LLC (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2013)

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

MEMORANDUM **

AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration.

When the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, it did not have the benefit of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) and by this court in Coneff v. AT & T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court ruled that the arbitration clause in the agreement between McArdle and AT & T was unenforceable due to the absence of class action relief. This ruling is not consistent with the holdings of Concepcion and Coneff. See Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1751-52; Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161.

In Coneff, we noted that “generally applicable contract defenses” survive under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746). We remand to the district court to consider in the first instance McArdle’s arguments based on generally applicable contract defenses. See id.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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