In Re DirecTV Early Cancellation Litigation

Good Law
738 F. Supp. 2d 1062·2010 WL 3633079·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98204
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2010Case ML 09-2093 AG (ANx)California13,425 words

Opinion

Opinion

Guilford, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DIRECTV’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WITH CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS AND DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

In this Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) case concerning early cancellation fees, Defendant DirecTV filed a Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and to Compel Arbitration with the Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia Plaintiffs (“Motion”). After considering all papers and arguments submitted, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

To resolve the Motion to Compel and the Motion to Dismiss, this case requires a review of the consumer protection laws of eight states.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“SAC”) and the Court accepts them to be true, as it must for motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6).

DirecTV provides satellite television programming throughout the United States. (SAC ¶¶ 10, 37.) To allow its customers to access that service, DirecTV provides receivers and other equipment. (SAC ¶ 10.) DirecTV is incorporated and has…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.