Kara MAUGHON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Levi Blasdel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, 520 F. App'x 857

PER CURIAM: Since the filing of this appeal in 2009, the Supreme Court and our Court have touched on the precise issues raised in this appeal. Under our prior precedent rule, “we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent ‘unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.’” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v.

Brown, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir.2003)); see also id. (“Even if the reasoning of an intervening high court decision is at odds with a prior appellate court decision, that does not provide the appellate court with a basis for departing from its prior decision.”). We hold that we are bound by our decision in Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Co., 691 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir.2012), to affirm the district court’s Order compelling arbitration. See Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1236. AFFIRMED.