
    Antonio SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Fernando Alegria, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Hillary Mitchell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Judhit Santander, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-13263
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (May 18, 2017)
    
      Luis Antonio Cabassa, Steven G. Wen-zel, Brandon Hill, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr., Theane Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Courtney B. Wilson, Littler Mendelson, PC, Miami, FL, Anthony J. Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Orlando, FL, Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Ring-Dowell, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Kevin Patrick Flanagan, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Litigation, Washington, DC, Paul A. Thomas, National Labor Relations Board, Contempt, Compliance, and Special Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for National Labor Relations Board
    Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

The appellants, who previously worked as drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc., sued Uber asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq,, the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501,201 et seq. When Uber moved to compel arbitration in the district court, the drivers opposed the motion on the ground that the entire written agreement they had entered into was unconscionable under both California and Florida law.

Now, on appeal, the drivers assert three new arguments. They argue that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. § 1, that the delegation clause is inapplicable because of the FAA exemption, and that the class waiver in Uber’s software agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act under 29 U.S.C. § 157. In exercise of our.discretion, we choose not to address these arguments, which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing “a case that is wholly different” from the case litigated below). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to compel arbitration.

AFFIRMED.  