Carideo, et al v. USDC-WWS, No. 07-74458 (9th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: KRISTIN CARIDEO; CATHERINE CANDLER, KRISTIN CARIDEO; CATHERINE CANDLER, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, DELL, INC., Real Party in Interest. ï£¼ ï£½ No. 07-74458 D.C. No. CV-06-01772-JLR ORDER ï£¾ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2008* Seattle, Washington Filed December 16, 2008 Before: Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges. *The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 16433 16434 IN RE CARIDEO COUNSEL Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for petitioners Kristin Carideo and Catherine Candler. Paul Schlaud, Reeves & Brightwell LLP, Austin, Texas, for real party in interest Dell Inc. ORDER The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED without prejudice. In light of the intervening authority of McKee v. AT & T Corp., 191 P.3d 845 (Wash. 2008), this case is remanded to the district court to reconsider its order denying Petitioners Rule 60(b) motion for relief from its order compelling arbitration. PETITION DENIED. REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.