United States v. 2011-02-11 | 09-55835 | SHAWN SAMSON V. NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, No. 09-55835 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
D.C. No. v.  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-
MMM-PJW  NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND
AMENDED
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
Amended February 11, 2011
*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2513

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: Stephen S. Trott and Kim McLane Wardlaw,
Circuit Judges, and Rudi M. Brewster,
Senior District Judge.**
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
The mandate is recalled. The order filed for publication on
December 15, 2010 is amended as follows:
First, delete the sentence that reads:
As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the rea-
sons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbi-
tration.
and replace it with:
As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the rea-
**The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District
Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
2514 SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS

-- 2 of 3 --

sons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbi-
tration, attached as Appendix A.
Second, attach as Appendix A the May 20, 2009 district
court Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitra-
tion, which is being transmitted together with this order.
The Clerk is directed to re-issue the mandate immediately
upon filing of the amended order and appendix. No petitions
for rehearing will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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, attached as Appen-
dix A. 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.
2515 SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS

-- 3 of 3 --