Faith Gordon v. Branch Banking and Trust

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 31, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-15399
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-23067-CV-JLK
FAITH GORDON,
on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 31, 2012)
ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

-- 1 of 3 --

Before MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
On March 28, 2011, in an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the judgment of
the district court denying Branch Banking and Trust’s (“BB&T”) motion to compel
arbitration and motion for reconsideration, holding that the class action waiver in
the arbitration agreement at issue was substantively unconscionable under Georgia
law. See Gordon v. Branch Banking and Trust, 419 F. App’x 920. After our
opinion issued, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., preempted California’s state law rule “classifying
most collective-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable.”
Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. at 1746. The Supreme Court has vacated this Court’s
judgment in Gordon and remanded for further consideration in light of
Concepcion. See Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon, --- S. Ct. ----, 2011 WL
3876982 (Nov. 14, 2011) (table).
Accordingly, without implying any view about the resolution of the case, we
vacate the judgment of the district court denying BB&T’s motion to compel
arbitration and motion for reconsideration, and remand this case to the district
Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of*
Illinois, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

court for reconsideration in light of Concepcion and subsequent decisions of this
Court. See, e.g., Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2011).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --