C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v. Michael A. Lemos, and John Lemos

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in light of this valid waiver, we assertedly did not need to decide whether we could apply retroactively the Supreme Court’s holding in Shearson/American Express, 482 U.S. at 238–42, that Rule 10b-5 and RICO claims were arbitrable
• holding that, in light of this valid waiver, we assertedly did not need to decide whether we could apply retroactively the Supreme Court’s holding in Shearson/American Express, 482 U.S. at 238–42, that Rule 10b-5 and RICO claims were arbitrable
• holding plaintiff’s 26 claims precluded by an earlier arbitration award
• noting 12 that “[t]he last of these criteria [regarding whether the two 13 suits arise out of the same transaction or nucleus of facts] is 14 the most important.”
• noting “[a]n arbitration decision can have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect”
• “[B]y submitting its . . . claims to arbitration, [the claimant] waived any right it had to litigate those claims in federal court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).