Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 88-3179
| Decision Date | 15 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3179,88-3179 |
| Citation | 867 F.2d 891 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,351, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7165 Victoria A. Carleton JOLLEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAINE WEBBER JACKSON & CURTIS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank E. Massengale, S. Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
George C. Freeman, III, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, La., for Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, TIMBERS * and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Feb. 2, 1989, 5th Cir.1989, 864 F.2d 402)
The recent amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 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
(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.
(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 Sec. 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 Sec. 15(a)(1), nor is it within the meaning of Sec. 15(a)(2). Our prior opinion adequately explains why the order is not a final decision within the meaning of Sec. 15(a)(3), and thus the order is interlocutory and unappealable as specified in Sec. 15(b)(1).
* Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dahiya v. Talmidge Intern., Ltd.
...F.3d 538, 542 (5th Cir.2001); Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 864 F.2d 402, 403-04 (5th Cir.1989), supplemented, 867 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1989). This Court has also held that a denial of a stay pending arbitration, where the district court had not yet ruled on the arbitrability ......
-
International Ass'n of Machinists v. Goodrich
...pending arbitration is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)." 864 F.2d 402, 403 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted) supplemented at 867 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1989); Turboff v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 867 F.2d 1518, 1520 (5th Cir.1989) (stating that there is no appellate jurisdi......
-
Banks v. City Finance Co., 2001-CA-00862-SCT.
...result may be appealed." Id. See also Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 864 F.2d 402 (5th Cir.), supplemented, 867 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1989) (orders granting stays or compelling arbitration are interlocutory and not appealable). The court ruled the district court's stay was inter......
-
McDermott Intern., Inc. v. Underwriters At Lloyds Subscribing To Memorandum of Ins. No. 104207
...acknowledged its existence. See Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 864 F.2d 402, 405 & n. 3 (5th Cir.) supplemented, 867 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1989). McDermott maintains that the decision was final in its own "judicial context", 5 because the only jurisdictional basis for the origin......