Contributors
813.229.4304
407.244.8235
813.229.4301
202.965.8181
813.229.4362
305.347.6823
305.347.6990
860.392.5038
305.539.7309
561.650.0354
561.822.2972
561.650.8014
305.539.7230
202.295.6525
212.380.9612
305.539.7330
860.392.5053
202.965.8129
202.965.8126
202.965.8107
   
  
  
   
(Click to edit)


Did Coneff Follow Kilgore and Concepcion? Or Did the Ninth Circuit Reject this Mouthful?

April 10, 2012 5:58 PM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Print this page
In Coneff v. AT&T Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 887598 (9th Cir. Wash. Mar. 16, 2012), the Ninth Circuit again contemplated the impact of AT&T Mobility, Inc. v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state law, and refusing to enforce arbitration provisions with class action waivers, as we similarly recently discussed in Kilgore.

In Coneff, cell phone customers of AT&T entered into service agreements requiring arbitration and waiving the right to bring a class action. The district court denied AT&T's motion to compel arbitration, finding the waiver unconscionable and unenforceable.

The Ninth Circuit applied Concepcion, and reversed the district court, holding that states cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, concluding that the California and Washington state laws were both preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the argument that there is an implied exception to Concepcion when arbitration provisions interfere with statutory rights under state law.

Related Information

Related Attorneys