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:T499,MEMORANDUM AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration. When the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, it did not have the benefit of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) and by this court in Coneff v. AT & T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2012). The district court ruled that the arbitration clause in the agreement between McArdle and AT & T was unenforceable due to the absence of class action relief. This ruling is not consistent with the holdings of Concepcion and Coneff. See Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1751-52; Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 . In Coneff , we noted that “generally applicable contract defenses” survive under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746). We remand to the district court to consider in the first instance McArdle’s arguments based on generally applicable contract defenses. See id. REVERSED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4cb,

MEMORANDUM

AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration.

When the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, it did not have the benefit of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) and by this court in Coneff v. AT & T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2012). The district court ruled that the arbitration clause in the agreement between McArdle and AT & T was unenforceable due to the absence of class action relief. This ruling is not consistent with the holdings of Concepcion and Coneff. See Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1751-52; Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 .

In Coneff , we noted that “generally applicable contract defenses” survive under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746). We remand to the district court to consider in the first instance McArdle’s arguments based on generally applicable contract defenses. See id.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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