Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1989

Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 26, 1989
892 F.2d 82; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 19482; 1989 WL 155919 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Brandise v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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

1

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑