• On November 8, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted DirectTV’s motion to stay a putative class action pending arbitration. Plaintiffs allege that DirecTV violated California and federal law by “improperly maintain[ing] their personally identifiable information after Plaintiffs had terminated their service with DirecTV.” DirecTV maintains that the case must be sent for binding arbitration under their service contract. Plaintiffs argued, unsuccessfully, that the arbitration clause in the DirecTV service agreement does not apply to acts that occurred after termination of the contractual relationship. The court found it “well settled that courts must hold ‘arbitration agreements to a life and validity separate and apart from the agreement in which they are imbedded.’” The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable, rejecting the notion that arbitration clauses must have “customer-friendly” terms such as those that the Supreme Court highlighted in upholding the AT&T Mobility arbitration clause in Concepcion: “The primary defect in Plaintiffs’ argument is that it is logically erroneous: the arbitration provision does not gain unconscionability by lacking consumer-friendly provisions.” The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, and denied plaintiffs’ request for preliminary discovery aimed at defeating the arbitration clause. Hodsdon v. DirecTV, LLC, No. C 12-02827 JSW (N.D. Cal.).