VICTORIA A. CARLETON JOLLEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
PAINE WEBBER JACKSON & CURTIS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the recent amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically new section 15, does not alter the appealability of the order staying proceedings pending arbitration in this case.
The court is supplementing a prior opinion concerning an order staying proceedings pending arbitration. Congress recently amended the Federal Arbitrat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
CLARK, Chief Judge:
The recent amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., was not dealt with in our opinion dated February 2, 1989, which is reported at 864 F. 2d 402. Accordingly, we supplement our prior opinion as follows.
Effective November 19, 1988, Congress added new section 15 to the Federal Arbitration Act:
15. Appeals
(a) An appeal may be taken from— (1) an order— (A) refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title, (B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed, (C) denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel arbitration, (D) confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award, or (E) modifying, correcting, or vacating an award;
(2) an interlocutory order granting, continuing, or modifying an injunction against an arbitration that is subject to this title; or (3) a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title, (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order— (1) granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title;
(2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title;
(3) compelling arbitration under section 206 of this title; or (4) refusing to enjoin an arbitration that is subject to this title.
Judicial Improvements & Access to Justice Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-702 § 1019, 102 Stat. 4642, 4670-71 (1988).
This new section clarifies congressional intent regarding appealability of arbitration orders, but does not change the result of our decision. In the instant case, the order staying proceedings pending arbitration is not listed as one of the appealable orders in § 15(a)(1), nor is it within the meaning of § 15(a)(2). Our prior opinion adequately explains why the order is not a final decision within the meaning of § 15(a)(3), and thus the order is interlocutory and unappealable as specified in § 15(b)(1).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turboff v. Merrill Lynch, 867 F.2d 1518 (5th Cir. 1989)
-
Forsythe Int'l, S.A. v. Gibbs OIL Co. OF Tex., 915 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1990)
-
Purdy v. Monex Int'l Ltd., 867 F.2d 1521 (5th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 864 F.2d 402 (5th Cir. 1989)