Opinion
No. SC10–19.
2012-07-17
James PENDERGAST, et al., Appellant(s) v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, etc., Appellee(s).
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified questions to this Court asking how contractual unconscionability should be analyzed under Florida law and whether a class action waiver in an agreement to arbitrate in a consumer contract for wireless telephone service is unconscionable under Florida law. See Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119, 1143–44 (11th Cir.2010). After the United States Supreme Court subsequently issued its decision in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), Sprint Nextel Corporation filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit seeking to have that court withdraw certification of the questions to this Court.
The Eleventh Circuit “conclude[d] that had we had Concepcion before us at the time of our initial consideration of this appeal, we would not have certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court, as Concepcion does appear to resolve-or at a minimum significantly impact the resolution of-all four questions we certified.” The Eleventh Circuit denied Sprint's motion, stating that “given that the Florida Supreme Court has accepted the certification and has already reviewed the parties' briefs and heard oral argument, and out of deference to our State Court colleagues, we deny Sprint's motion to withdraw certification.”
Sprint then filed in this Court a motion to decline jurisdiction. Having considered Sprint's motion to decline jurisdiction, Pendergast's response, Sprint's reply, and the numerous notices of supplemental authority filed by the parties, we hereby grant Sprint's Motion to Decline Jurisdiction and return this case to the Eleventh Circuit.
It is so ordered.