Filed: May 15, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 15, 2008 No. 07-10230 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk National Resort Management Corporation; Double Diamond Inc. Movants-Appellees v. Rachel D. Cortez; Felicia G. Hernandez; Crystal I. Moore; Teresa D. Morath; Mary Noble Claimants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-cv-00641 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Ci
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 15, 2008 No. 07-10230 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk National Resort Management Corporation; Double Diamond Inc. Movants-Appellees v. Rachel D. Cortez; Felicia G. Hernandez; Crystal I. Moore; Teresa D. Morath; Mary Noble Claimants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-cv-00641 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Cir..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 15, 2008
No. 07-10230 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
National Resort Management Corporation; Double Diamond Inc.
Movants-Appellees
v.
Rachel D. Cortez; Felicia G. Hernandez; Crystal I. Moore;
Teresa D. Morath; Mary Noble
Claimants-Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-cv-00641
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for
reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates,
L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.,
128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008) (holding that, regardless of the
parties’ agreement to the contrary, district courts must review an arbitrator’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law under the highly deferential standard set
forth in 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.