action would alter the status of the litigation and interfere with this Court’s jurisdiction over this controversy.” (PI. Recon. Opp. at 12.) When arbitration clauses were included in the credit card agreements for these categories of cardholders, they were not putative class members. As a result, they had no rights in this litigation. In th Cir.2003) (arbitration agreement which expressly prohibited class actions was valid against TILA claimants seeking class certification); Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631 (4th Cir.2002) (enforcing an arbitration clause that prohibited class actions and holding that public policy is not upset by allowing for waiver of class action remedies of consumer protection claims); Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 244 F.3d 814 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In Gilmer, the Supreme Court held that the
holding that one may waive his right to sue as a class even though the age discrimination in employment act adea expressly references a right to class remedies holding that montanas constitution does not create a right to welfare holding district court did not abuse discretion when it denied class certification for tila violations case where class members were not harmed and aggregate of statutory damages would be extremely large holding that tila does not create a nonwaivable right to sue as a class holding that where there is no suggestion in the text legislative history or purpose of the flsa that congress intended to confer a nonwaivable right to a class action a plaintiffs inability to bring a class action cannot by itself suffice to defeat the strong congressional preference for an arbitral forum