Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Jeff Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Group
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 3, 2016No. 15-35257, 15-35504Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilman, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority opinion’s holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, I concur in Part IV. of the opinion. I further agree with the majority’s, framework for analyzing motions to compel arbitration as described in Part III.A. But I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion in Part III.B. that the Plaintiffs’ claims clearly and unambiguously fall outside the scope of Paragraph 3(a) of the Resolution Agreement. Such a conclusion strikes me as contrary to well-established circuit…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Chiron Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., a New Jersey CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Peacock v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Republic of Nicaragua, a Foreign Sovereign v. Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, and Castle & Cooke, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.