From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benoist v. Fast Draw Productions Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 21, 2001
3 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


3 Fed.Appx. 640 (9th Cir. 2001) Noel T. BENOIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST DRAW PRODUCTIONS INC.; Tristar Productions Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-16025. D.C. No. CV-97-166-RCC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 21, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Benoist's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Noel T. Benoist appeals pro se the order of the district court dismissing his action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a prior order to proceed to contractual arbitration. Because the district court clearly intended its May 3, 1999 order to operate as a final adjudication, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Nevada v. Burford, 918 F.2d 854, 855 (9th Cir.1990). We review for abuse of discretion, see Al- Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and

Page 641.

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its May 3, 1999 order.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Benoist v. Fast Draw Productions Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 21, 2001
3 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Benoist v. Fast Draw Productions Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Noel T. BENOIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST DRAW PRODUCTIONS INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 21, 2001

Citations

3 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2001)