Steven Benezra v. Zacks Investment Research, Inc., No. 12-1570 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1570 STEVEN BENEZRA, individually; MELISSA YORK, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ZACKS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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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