Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-16-2004 D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-1788 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 550. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/550 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-1788 ___________ JOHN D'IORIO; DIANE D'IORIO v. MAJESTIC LANES INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Appellant ___________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. No. 01-cv-00809) District Judge: The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman ___________ ARGUED MARCH 9, 2004 Before: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, Circuit Judges and OBERDORFER, District Judge* (Filed June 16, 2004) ___________ *. Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. Anthony S. McCaskey, Esq. (Argued) Peter B. Van Deventer, Jr., Esq. St. John & Wayne Two Penn Plaza East Newark, NJ 07105 Counsel for Appellant Scott K. McClain, Esq. (Argued) Winne, Banta, Hetherington & Basralian 25 Main Street Court Plaza North Hackensack, NJ 07602 Counsel for Appellee ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION It is now ordered that the published Opinion in the above case filed June 3, 2004, be amended as follows: On page 2, the seventh line of the second paragraph under section I, delete “arbitration”, and insert “trial de novo”. The sentence should now read: Following the passage of the thirty-day limitation on demands for trial de novo, D’Iorio filed a document styled as a “Notice of Withdrawal of Demand for Trial De Novo,” requesting that the District Court withdraw his demand for a trial de novo and reinstate the arbitration award. By the Court /s/ Richard L. Nygaard Circuit Judge Dated: 6/16/2004