Case: 16-13263 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13263
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cv-00166-JSM-MAP
ANTONIO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
FERNANDO ALEGRIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
HILLARY MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
JUDHIT SANTANDER,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
versus
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 18, 2017)
Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, *
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
The Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 16-13263 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 2 of 2
The appellants, who previously worked as drivers for Uber Technologies,
Inc., sued Uber asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq., the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. When Uber
moved to compel arbitration in the district court, the drivers opposed the motion on
the ground that the entire written agreement they had entered into was
unconscionable under both California and Florida law.
Now, on appeal, the drivers assert three new arguments. They argue that
they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. § 1, that the
delegation clause is inapplicable because of the FAA exemption, and that the class
waiver in Uber’s software agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act
under 29 U.S.C. § 157. In exercise of our discretion, we choose not to address
these arguments, which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing “a case
that is wholly different” from the case litigated below). We therefore affirm the
district court’s decision to compel arbitration.
AFFIRMED.
2