Case Name: Steven McARDLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; New Cingular Wireless Services, INC., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-29
Citations: 474 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 09-17218
Parties: Steven McARDLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; New Cingular Wireless Services, INC., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Steven McARDLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; New Cingular Wireless Services, INC., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-17218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2012.
Filed June 29, 2012.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 31, 2012.
Adam Joshua Gutride, Lee Jay Yee-chang Kuo, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Sa-fier LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald Manwell Falk, Mayer Brown, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Joseph William Goodman, John Nadolenco, Esquire, Mayer Brown, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Archis Ashok Parasharami, Kevin Ranlett, Evan Mark Tager, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
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.