at 4 (collecting cases and describing the Circuit split on the issue). The court does not address arguments raised for the first time in a Reply. Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co. v. ACI Int'l, Inc., 521 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1173 n.70 (D. Kan. 2007) (citing Hutton Contracting Co. v. City of Coffeyville, 487 F.3d 772, 788 (10th Cir. 2007)). Even so, the court notes that the Employment Agreement here contains no express waiver of the right to bring collective or class action claims in any forum. And, even if the Employment Agreement specifically included such waiver language, our court has addressed this issue, concluding that such provisions do not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. See Bell v. Ryan Transp. Serv., Inc., 176 F.Supp.3d 1251, 1263 (D. Kan. 2016) (Lungstrum, J.) (<HOLDING>); see also Pollard v. ETS PC, Inc., 186
holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that the tenth circuit if faced with this issue would follow those circuit court of appeals  that have permitted the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court