Arel Price v. Stevedoring Services of Americ
This text of Arel Price v. Stevedoring Services of Americ (Arel Price v. Stevedoring Services of Americ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 09-55835 v. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01433- NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, MMM-PJW Defendant-Appellee.
SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, No. 09-56394 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:09-cv-01433- NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, MMM-PJW Defendant-Appellee. ORDER
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2010* Pasadena, California
Filed December 15, 2010
Before: Stephen S. Trott and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Rudi M. Brewster, Senior District Judge.**
*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). **The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
20091 20092 SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS COUNSEL
Roger J. Magnuson, Kent J. Schmidt, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Irvine, CA; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, New York, NY; Richard A. Schirtzer, Susan R. Estrich, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Shawn Samson and Jack Kashani.
Howard J. Rubinroit, Ronald C. Cohen, James M. Harris, Sid- ley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California, for NAMA Hold- ings, LLC.
ORDER
As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. Appeal No. 09- 56394, challenging the district court’s award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to Defendant, is therefore moot.
APPEAL NO. 09-55835: AFFIRMED.
APPEAL NO. 09-56394: MOOT. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2010 Thomson Reuters/West.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Arel Price v. Stevedoring Services of Americ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arel-price-v-stevedoring-services-of-americ-ca9-2010.