Steven Benezra v. Zacks Investment Research, Inc. , 491 F. App'x 396 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Benezra and Melissa York seek to appeal the
district court’s order denying their request for a hearing,
compelling arbitration, and staying the case pending
arbitration. 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. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2