Sprint recently filed a cert petition involving the Supreme Court’s Concepcion decision. Sprint v. Ayyad, No. 12-1358 (May 14, 2013). The case involves a class action pending in California state courts prior to Concepcion, and the plaintiffs, cell phone customers of Sprint, alleged that Sprint’s early termination fees violated California’s unfair business practices law. Sprint at first did not try to enforce the arbitration agreements with its customers because of California’s Discover Bank rule. However, after the Supreme Court issued its Concepcion ruling, Sprint moved to compel arbitration. The California trial court refused to hear the FAA motion because the class action had proceeded and been subject to an appeal, and an appellate court had remanded the case to the trial court solely to hear narrow issues regarding damages. In the cert petition, Sprint argues that state courts are trying to evade the Supreme Court’s Concepcion ruling, and the California state court’s refusal to hear the motion to compel violates the FAA, which is applicable in state courts under the Supreme Court’s Southland ruling.