Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young. Read the opinion of the Court — 834 F.3d 975
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 9, 2018·No. 13-16599·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN MORRIS; KELLY No. 13-16599 MCDANIEL, on behalf of themselves and all others D.C. No. similarly situated, 5:12-cv-04964-RMW Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. OPINION

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP; ERNST & YOUNG U.S., LLP, Defendants-Appellees.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed July 9, 2018

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Sandra S.

Ikuta and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

2 MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion dated May 21, 2018, the opinion of this Court dated August 22, 2016, 834 F.3d 975 is VACATED and judgment is entered AFFIRMING the district court’s grant of Defendant- Appellees’ motion to compel arbitration.

AFFIRMED.

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

Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young, (9th Cir. 2018).

Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young (Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young
834 F.3d 975 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)