Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 18-16823 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Under California contract law, the panel looked to the reasonable expectation of the parties at the time of the contract and held that a valid agreement to arbitrate between plaintiff and DIRECTV does not exist. The panel explained that, when plaintiff signed his wireless services agreement with AT&T Mobility so that he could obtain cell phone services, he could not reasonably have expected that he would be forced to arbitrate an unrelated dispute with DIRECTV, a satellite television provider that would not become affiliated with AT&T until years later. Furthermore, distinguishing Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019), the panel concluded that DIRECTV fails to show that California's absurd-results canon disfavors arbitration agreements compared to other contracts, and the panel was not persuaded that the FAA preempts California's rule requiring that courts interpret contracts to avoid absurd results. The panel concluded that a federal court's role is limited to determining 1) whether a valid agreement to arbitration exists and, if it does, 2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.
Court Description: Arbitration. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant DIRECTV, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act in a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleged that DIRECTV, a satellite television services company, made calls to his cell phone in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff was a customer of AT&T Mobility, LLC, a wireless service provider, with which he signed a contract that included an arbitration clause extending to all disputes between him and AT&T. As defined in the wireless services contract, any reference to AT&T Mobility also included its “affiliates.” Years later, DIRECTV was acquired by AT&T, Inc., which became the parent company of both DIRECTV and AT&T Mobility. Disagreeing with the Fourth Circuit, the panel held that, under California contract law, looking to the reasonable expectation of the parties at the time of contract, a valid agreement to arbitrate did not exist between plaintiff and DIRECTV because DIRECTV was not an affiliate of AT&T Mobility when the contract was signed. Distinguishing Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019), the panel held that the FAA does not preempt California’s “absurd results” canon, which requires that courts interpret contracts REVITCH V. DIRECTV 3 to avoid absurd results. The panel concluded that the correct inquiry was whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between plaintiff and DIRECTV, rather than asking first, whether plaintiff and AT&T entered into a valid arbitration agreement and second, whether the scope of that agreement required plaintiff to arbitrate claims against entities like DIRECTV that later became affiliates of AT&T. Concurring, Judge O’Scannlain wrote separately to expand upon the issue of contract scope, as distinguished from contract formation. He wrote that, even if the panel considered the question under the rubric of scope, it would still affirm the denial of the motion to compel arbitration based on the express language of the FAA because the dispute did not “arise out of” plaintiff’s contract with AT&T Mobility under 9 U.S.C. § 2. Dissenting, Judge Bennett wrote that neither party disputed the existence and validity of the arbitration clause. Thus, the issues before the panel fell squarely within the question whether the agreement encompassed the dispute at issue. Judge Bennett concluded that the arbitration clause’s express terms encompassed the parties’ dispute because “affiliates” in the clause clearly included DIRECTV. Moreover, under Lamps Plus, ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration clause must be resolved in favor of arbitration. Thus, even if some ambiguity existed, application of this rule of construction led to the same conclusion, that DIRECTV could compel arbitration. 4 REVITCH V. DIRECTV
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.