I’ve emerged from grading finals to discover that the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case has entered a  new chapter.  As most readers know, the Supreme Court, in its April 2011 opinion, reversed the district court’s denial of AT&T Mobility’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the case back to the district court for “further proceedings consistent with its opinion.”  After holding a status conference, issuing an Order to Show Cause (why it should not grant the motion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision) and reviewing briefs, the US District Court for the Southern District of California has now officially granted AT&T Mobility’s motion to compel arbitration.  See Laster v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2012 WL 1681762 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2012). 

What surprised me was that the Order was more than just a summary grant of the motion.  The district court analyzed whether, apart from the Discover Bank doctrine which is now preempted by the FAA, the arbitration agreement was still invalid under California’s general unconscionability principles.  The court concluded that, while it was “on the low end of the spectrum of procedural unconscionability,” it was not susbtantively unconscionable.  Thus, the court ordered Vincent and Liza Concepcion to arbitrate their claims according to the terms of the December 2006 version of the arbitration agreement (which the parties agreed was the controlling version). 

I look forward to finding out whether they in fact go forward in arbitration on their claim for $30.22.