William Forrest v. Keith Spizzirri

104 F.4th 1201

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 22-16051
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM F. FORREST, a single No. 22-16051 man; WENDY SMITH, a single woman; MICHELLE MARTINEZ, a D.C. No. single woman; JODI MILLER, a 2:21-cv-01688- married woman; KENNETH GMS TURNER, a married man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ORDER

KEITH SPIZZIRRI; MIRIAM SPIZZIRRI, husband and wife; KEN MARING; MARING, Unknown; a married couple, named as Jane Doe Maring; CYNTHIA MOORE; MOORE, Unknown; a married couple, named as John Doe Moore; UNKNOWN PARTY, husband named as Pat Doe and wife, named as Jane Doe I; JOHN DE LA CRUZ; DE LA CRUZ, Unknown; a married couple, named as Jane Doe De La Cruz; INTELLIQUICK DELIVERY, INC., an Arizona corporation; MAJIK LEASING LLC, an Arizona corporation; MAJIK ENTERPRISES I, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendants-Appellees. 2 FORREST V. SPIZZIRRI

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed June 25, 2024

Before: Susan P. Graber, Mark J. Bennett, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY*

Arbitration

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Forrest v. Spizzirri, 144 S. Ct. 1173 (2024), reversing and remanding to this court, the panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

COUNSEL

Nicholas J. Enoch, Clara S. Bustamante, Morgan L. Bigelow, and Daniel L. Geyser, Lubin & Enoch PC, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Laurent R.G. Badoux, Robert M. Dato, and Paul A. Alarcón, Buchalter A Professional Corporation, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendants-Appellees.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. FORREST V. SPIZZIRRI 3

ORDER

The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case to this court for further proceedings. See Forrest v. Spizzirri, --- U.S. ----, 144 S. Ct. 1173, 2024 WL 2193872 (May 16, 2024). We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court. REMANDED.