UHS of Delaware, Inc. appeals the district court’s order finding *2 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. ^[1]

UHS argues that DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia , 136 S. Ct. 463 (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 (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 (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. Therefore, neither case is undermined by Imburgia .

*3 AFFIRMED.

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] 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.

[1] Because we affirm, we deny Appellee Vanessa Rivera’s motion for summary affirmance as moot.