In a putative class action regarding an alleged defect in the defendant’s line of mobile phones, the Central District of California granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Carwile v. Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC, No. 12-05660 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013). The court rejected the named plaintiff’s contention that she and the class were not bound by an arbitration clause in a warranty, with the court noting that the plaintiff’s claim was based on the very same warranty. The court reasoned that, if plaintiff had not agreed to be bound by the terms in the warranty including the arbitration clause, she would have no contractual or express warranty rights upon which to bring her claim. Thus, it would be wholly inconsistent for plaintiff to contend that she never consented to the arbitration clause in the warranty, while at the same time attempting to enforce her rights under the warranty.