Coneff

Coneff v. AT & T CORP.

Bad Law
673 F.3d 1155·2012 WL 887598·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5520
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 201209-35563California2,778 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

Plaintiffs are current and former customers of Defendants, New Cingular Wire less Services, Inc., and AT & T Mobility, LLC (collectively, “AT & T”). Plaintiffs filed a class action against AT & T, which responded by seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in its contracts with Plaintiffs. The district court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement on state-law unconscionability grounds, relying primarily on the agreement’s class-action waiver provision. AT & T appeals. We reverse the district court’s substantive unconscionability ruling and remand for further proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability claims.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this putative class action, the named plaintiffs are residents of eight different states: California, Washington, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia. Plaintiffs initially filed several separate nationwide class actions, which were consolidated. Plaintiffs assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d) and allege unjust enrichment and breach of contract; they also allege violations of the Federal Communications Act and various state consumer-protection…

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.