
    Vanessa RIVERA, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UHS OF DELAWARE, INC., DBA Universal Health Services of Delaware, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-56972
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed December 1, 2017
    Joseph Antonelli, Esquire, Attorney, Janelle C. Carney, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Chino Hills, CA, Sahag Majarían, II, Esquire, Attorney, Sahag Majarían II Law Offices, Tar-zana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esquire, Attorney, Christina H. Hayes, Stacey Eileen James, Esquire, Attorney, Littler Mendel-son, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

UHS of Delaware, Inc. appeals the district court’s order finding unenforceable a provision in an arbitration agreement that waives representative claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Reviewing the order de novo, see Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted), we affirm.

UHS argues that DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, - U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 463, 193 L.Ed.2d 365 (2015), abrogated Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), and Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129 (2014), and therefore the district court’s reliance on Sakkab and Iskanian was erroneous. We disagree and conclude that Imburgia is not clearly irreconcilable with Sakkab or Iskanian. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Imburgia simply held that a California court failed to place arbitration contracts “on equal footing with all other contracts” when it interpreted a choice-of-law provision in an arbitration agreement. 136 S.Ct. at 468-71 (quoting Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006)). Sakkab and Iskanian, in contrast, directly addressed the validity of PAGA waivers in arbitration agreements under state and federal law. Sakkab, 803 F.3d at 431—40; Iskanian, 59 Cal. 4th at 378-89, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129. Therefore, neither case is undermined by Imburgia.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Because we affirm, we deny Appellee Vanessa Rivera’s motion for summary affir-mance as moot.
     