Legal Opinion
Momot v. Mastro
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 22, 2011No. 10-15276PublishedCited by 162 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Defendants-Appellants Dennis, Jeff, and Michael Mastro (collectively, the Mastros) appeal from the district court’s order enjoining arbitration and denying their motion to stay judicial proceedings under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 3.
In connection with an asset purchase transaction, the Mastros and Plaintiff-Appellee John Momot entered into an allocation agreement (Allocation Agreement) that included an arbitration clause. The Mastros contend that the arbitration clause reserved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrators,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by162 opinions
- Carey Brennan v. Opus BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Jessica Kramer v. Toyota Motor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Alejandro Rodriguez v. Timothy RobbinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Veronica Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High SchoolCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
157 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.