David Kardonick v. Citigroup, Inc., et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 27, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-11124
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-23023-JLK
DAVID KARDONICK,
individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated and the general public,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITIGROUP, INC.,
CITICORP USA, INC.,
CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(December 27, 2011)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp USA, Inc., and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
(“Citibank”) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to compel
arbitration in this matter, a purported class action brought by David Kardonick.
The district court determined that the arbitration agreement was procedurally
unconscionable.
At the time the district court made its ruling in this case, it was without the
benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S.
Ct. 1740 (2011) and our decision in Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d
1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2011), where we held that in light of Concepcion, the class
action waiver and the plaintiffs’ arbitration agreement is enforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act.
Because we believe it prudent for the district court to reconsider its order in
the first instance, especially in light of Concepcion and Cruz, we vacate the district
court’s order denying Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration and remand this
case for the district court to reconsider its order in light of Concepcion and Cruz.1
VACATED and REMANDED.
This is an unlimited remand.1
2

-- 2 of 2 --