California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC398295, John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Kirkland & Ellis, Melissa D. Ingalls, Robyn E. Bladow, and Shaun Paisley for Defendant and Appellant.
Milstein Adelman, Paul D. Stevens, Mayo L. Makarczyk, Shireen Mohsenzadegan; Consumer Watchdog, Harvey Rosenfield, Pamela Pressley; The Evans Law Firm, Ingrid Maria Evans; Law Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein and F. Edie Mermelstein for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.
DIRECTV, Inc. moved to dismiss or stay this class action litigation and to compel arbitration. The superior court denied the motion. DIRECTV argues that the motion should have been granted under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S.___ [179 L.Ed.2d 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740] (Conception). We conclude that under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement, the motion was correctly denied. We therefore affirm.
On September 17, 2008, Amy Imburgia filed a class action complaint against DIRECTV, alleging claims for unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, false advertising, and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.), the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and Civil Code section 1671, subdivision (d). Imburgia’s claims were based on allegations that DIRECTV has improperly charged early termination fees to its customers. Kathy Greiner filed a similar class action complaint one day after Imburgia, and Imburgia and Greiner (hereafter plaintiffs) jointly filed a first amended complaint on March 16, 2009. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit proceeded at the same time as a multidistrict
litigation proceeding in federal court involving similar claims. DIRECTV moved to stay plaintiffs’ state court action pending the outcome of the multidistrict litigation, but the superior court denied the motion.
Plaintiffs subsequently moved for class certification. On April 20, 2011, the superior court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, certifying a class as to one of ...