Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

892 F.2d 82, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 19482, 1989 WL 155919

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1989

Docket88-15689

StatusUnpublished

This text of 892 F.2d 82 (Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 892 F.2d 82, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 19482, 1989 WL 155919 (9th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

892 F.2d 82

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joseph R. BRANDISE and Georgia Brandise, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., aka Shearson Lehman/American
Express, Inc., a Delaware corporation; WILLIAM
GOODWIN, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-15689.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 1989.*
Decided Dec. 26, 1989.

Before REINHARDT, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

We hereby dismiss the Brandises' appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See 9 U.S.C. § 15(b) ("an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order ... (1) granting a stay of an action under section 3 of this title [or] (2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title"); Gooding v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 878 F.2d 281 (9th Cir.1989). Appellees' motion for sanctions is denied.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI