Opinion
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California November 5, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 8:09-ml-02093-AG-AN. Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding.
For ANNETTE KAHALY, JOHN MULEA, MAUREEN VAN METER, CAROLYN FORBES, TARA MURRAY, SEAN MURRAY, LOUIS M. WILSON, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees: Blake Muir Harper, Attorney, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, CA; Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan D. Selbin, Attorney, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.
For KEITH HARPER, JANA HARPER, TRACY TWYMAN, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees: Ingrid M. Evans, Attorney, The Evans Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Blake Muir Harper, Attorney, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, CA; Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan D. Selbin, Attorney, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.
For EBEN PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee: Ingrid M. Evans, Attorney, The Evans Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Blake Muir Harper, Attorney, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, CA; Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY; Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jonathan D. Selbin, Attorney, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.
For KAREN BRICE, Plaintiff-counter-defendant - Appellee: Blake Muir Harper, Attorney, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, CA; Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY; Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jonathan D. Selbin, Attorney, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY.
For DIRECTV, INC., Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellant: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Attorney, Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Attorney, Shaun Paisley, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
DirecTV appeals the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), and we reverse.
This court recently held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's Broughton-Cruz rule, on which the district court based its denial. See F erguson v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 733 F.3d 928, 2013 WL 5779514, at *1 (9th Cir. 2013). The plaintiffs' arguments for affirming the district court on alternative grounds fail. The " effective vindication" exception to the FAA does not extend to state statutes, including the UCL and the CLRA. See 733 F.3d 928, Id. at *6. That customers have to arbitrate their claims for injunctive relief against DirecTV whereas DirecTV is unlikely to seek injunctive relief from its customers does not make the arbitration agreement unconscionable. Cf. Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 57 Cal.4th 1109, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269, 311 P.3d 184 (2013).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.