FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH LOMBARDI, No. 11-56752
Plaintiff-counter-defendant, D.C. No. 8:09-ml-02093-AG-AN
and
MEMORANDUM*
ANNETTE KAHALY; JOHN MULEA;
MAUREEN VAN METER; CAROLYN
FORBES; TARA MURRAY; SEAN
MURRAY; KEITH HARPER; JANA
HARPER; TRACY TWYMAN; EBEN
PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; LOUIS M.
WILSON; KAREN BRICE,
Plaintiffs-counter-defendants
- Appellees,
v.
DIRECTV, INC.,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
DirecTV appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel
arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief under California’s Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). We have
jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), and we reverse.
This court recently held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts
California’s Broughton-Cruz rule, on which the district court based its denial. See
Ferguson v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., — F.3d —, No. 11-56965, 2013 WL 5779514,
at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013). The plaintiffs’ arguments for affirming the district
court on alternative grounds fail. The “effective vindication” exception to the FAA
does not extend to state statutes, including the UCL and the CLRA. See id. at *6.
That customers have to arbitrate their claims for injunctive relief against DirecTV
whereas DirecTV is unlikely to seek injunctive relief from its customers does not
make the arbitration agreement unconscionable. Cf. Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v.
Moreno, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269, 285, 303-04 (2013).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2