Shawn Samson, et al v. Nama Holdings, LLC, No. 09-55835 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.     No. 09-55835 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01433MMM-PJW  No. 09-56394 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01433MMM-PJW  ORDER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2010* Pasadena, California Filed December 15, 2010 Before: Stephen S. Trott and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Rudi M. Brewster, Senior District Judge.** *The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). **The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 20091 20092 SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS COUNSEL Roger J. Magnuson, Kent J. Schmidt, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Irvine, CA; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, New York, NY; Richard A. Schirtzer, Susan R. Estrich, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Shawn Samson and Jack Kashani. Howard J. Rubinroit, Ronald C. Cohen, James M. Harris, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California, for NAMA Holdings, LLC. ORDER As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009 Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Arbitration. Appeal No. 0956394, challenging the district court s award of prevailing party attorneys fees to Defendant, is therefore moot. APPEAL NO. 09-55835: AFFIRMED. APPEAL NO. 09-56394: MOOT. 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 © 2010 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.
