FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 09-55835
v. D.C. No.
2:09-cv-01433-
NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, MMM-PJW
Defendant-Appellee.
SHAWN SAMSON; JACK KASHANI, No. 09-56394
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
v. 2:09-cv-01433-
NAMA HOLDINGS, LLC, MMM-PJW
Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND
AMENDED
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
Amended February 11, 2011
*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2513
2514 SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS
Before: Stephen S. Trott and Kim McLane Wardlaw,
Circuit Judges, and Rudi M. Brewster,
Senior District Judge.**
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, Sid-
ley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California, for NAMA Hold-
ings, LLC.
ORDER
The mandate is recalled. The order filed for publication on
December 15, 2010 is amended as follows:
First, delete the sentence that reads:
As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the rea-
sons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbi-
tration.
and replace it with:
As to Appeal No. 09-55835, we affirm for the rea-
**The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District
Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
SAMSON v. NAMA HOLDINGS 2515
sons stated by the district court in its May 20, 2009
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbi-
tration, attached as Appendix A.
Second, attach as Appendix A the May 20, 2009 district
court Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitra-
tion, which is being transmitted together with this order.
The Clerk is directed to re-issue the mandate immediately
upon filing of the amended order and appendix. No petitions
for rehearing will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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, attached as Appen-
dix A. Appeal No. 09-56394, 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.