
    Faith GORDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-15399.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 31, 2012.
    Paul D. Clement, H. Christopher Barto-lomucci, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Nancy H. Baughan, David B. Darden, Eric Jon Taylor, William J. Holley, II, Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Edward Adam Webb, G. Franklin Le-mond, Jr., Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, Bruce Rogow, Ft. Lauder-dale, FL, Robert C. Gilbert, Alters, Boldt, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

On March 28, 2011, in an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Branch Banking and Trust’s (“BB & T”) motion to compel arbitration and motion for reconsideration, holding that the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement at issue was substantively unconscionable under Georgia law. See Gordon v. Branch Banking and Trust, 419 Fed.Appx. 920 (11th Cir.2011). After our opinion issued, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., preempted California’s state law rule “classifying most collective-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable.” Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746. The Supreme Court has vacated this Court’s judgment in Gordon and remanded for further consideration in light of Concepcion. See Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 577, 181 L.Ed.2d 418 (2011) (table).

Accordingly, without implying any view about the resolution of the case, we vacate the judgment of the district court denying BB & T’s motion to compel arbitration and motion for reconsideration, and remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of Concepcion and subsequent decisions of this Court. See, e.g., Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir.2011).

VACATED AND REMANDED.  