22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T529,MEMORANDUM AT&T Mobility LLC appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B). In determining that the arbitration clause was unenforceable, the district court relied solely on this court’s previous decision in Laster v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2009), which was later reversed by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). The district court expressly declined to address Plaintiffs’ other arguments as to why the arbitration clause might be unenforceable—that AT&T’s modification to the arbitration clause in 2009 was improper because Plaintiffs lacked adequate notice of the change, and that the arbitration clause is unconscionable even after Concepcion. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Concepcion and this court’s recent decision in Coneffv. AT & T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2012). See Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 , 1000 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir.2004). REVERSED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T556,

MEMORANDUM

AT&T Mobility LLC appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B).

In determining that the arbitration clause was unenforceable, the district court relied solely on this court’s previous decision in Laster v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2009), which was later reversed by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). The district court expressly declined to address Plaintiffs’ other arguments as to why the arbitration clause might be unenforceable—that AT&T’s modification to the arbitration clause in 2009 was improper because Plaintiffs lacked adequate notice of the change, and that the arbitration clause is unconscionable even after Concepcion. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Concepcion and this court’s recent decision in Coneffv. AT & T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2012). See Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 , 1000 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir.2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.