Steven Benezra v. Zacks Investment Research, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00596-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999001540].. [12-1570]

Appeal: 12-1570

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1570

STEVEN BENEZRA, individually; MELISSA YORK, individually,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., inclusive, individually;
ZACKS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., inclusive, individually;
LEONARD HARVEY ZACKS, inclusive, individually; BENJAMIN LAIB
ZACKS,
inclusive,
individually;
MITCHEL
ETHAN
ZACKS,
inclusive, individually,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00596-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

November 30, 2012

Decided:

December 13, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Demontesquiou, THE LAW OFFICES OF WALSH & DEMONTESQUIOU,
Marvin, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Tobias S. Hampson,
David N. Jonson, WYRICK, ROBBINS, YATES & PONTON, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1570

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steven Benezra and Melissa York seek to appeal the
district

court’s

compelling

order

denying

arbitration,

arbitration.

their

and

request

staying

for

hearing,

case

the

a

pending

Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act governs

appellate review of arbitration orders.

9 U.S.C. § 16 (2006).

Section 16(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken from
.

.

.

a

final

decision

with

respect

to

an

arbitration.”

However, § 16(b)(1) provides that “an appeal may not be taken
from an interlocutory order . . . granting a stay of any action
under section 3 of this title.”

The order Benezra seeks to

appeal is not a final decision with respect to an arbitration,
but rather an interlocutory order granting a stay.

See Green

Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2