USCA11 Case: 20-11719 Date Filed: 05/04/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11719 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-81692-RAR RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ADA SERENA CORDOVA ARMIJOS, AMERICA ALICIA TROYA DE KENNEDY, ANA CATALINA AYLWIN EQUIGUREN, ANA C. YANS CONSTANTE, ANA DEL CARMEN NARVAEZ CHACON, et al. Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 4, 2021) USCA11 Case: 20-11719 Date Filed: 05/04/2021 Page: 2 of 6 Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellees are investors who claim to have been harmed by a fraudulent scheme, and in their telling Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., was affiliated with a developer of that scheme. So the appellees brought an arbitration to recover their losses, and added RJFS as a party respondent. RJFS sought, and received, a temporary restraining order that stopped the appellees from prosecuting their claims against RJFS in prosecution. That TRO was purportedly dissolved, and in the same order the district court also denied RJFS’s motion for preliminary injunction. Because we may not hear appeals of interlocutory orders refusing to enjoin an arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. I. The dispute that gave rise to this appeal is the claim that Frank Chatburn, who had at one time been registered with RJFS, marketed fraudulent financial products to the appellee investors. According to the appellee investors, in so doing, Chatburn held himself out to be associated with “Raymond James,” and apparently they believed him to be a “Raymond James’ Branch Manager between 2008 and 2012” even though RJFS had terminated him on August 15, 2008. But for our purposes, it isn’t important what Chatburn might have said, or what the investors might have thought, or what RJFS might have known. What matters is 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11719 Date Filed: 05/04/2021 Page: 3 of 6 that the investors filed a Statement of Claim in a FINRA arbitration in August 2018, and added RJFS as a respondent in November 2019. In December 2019, RJFS filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in federal court. RJFS sought a declaratory judgment that the investors’ claims against RJFS were not arbitrable in FINRA arbitration, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the investors from proceeding with the arbitration against RJFS. RJFS also moved for a temporary restraining order, to restrain the investors from prosecuting their claims against RJFS in the arbitration. On January 9, 2020, the district court granted the TRO. The TRO was extended for good cause on January 24, and then extended twice more, until the motion for preliminary injunction was heard. Finally, the preliminary injunction hearing was held on April 15, and the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO. On April 27, the district court issued a memorandum opinion explaining its reasoning. Rather than go gently to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals