Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in light of the participation in this litigation of defendant Avendrá (a non-party to the Master and 1999 Agreements).” Thereafter, Marriott appealed the court’s refusal to compel CTF to arbitrate, and CTF cross-appealed the court’s order staying CTF’s breach of contract suit pending resolution of the arbitration between Marriott and HPI. II. JURISDICTION We may review the denial of Marriott’s motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), which provides for jurisdiction over appeals from orders “denying a petition under [9 U.S.C. § 4] to order arbitration to proceed[.]” Marriot order that unreasonably delays a plaintiffs right to have its case heard is appealable. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d at 735; see also Haberern v. Lehigh & New England Ry., 554 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Here, the District Court decided two 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a stay order of indefinite length which singles out a claim for extended delay while others of a similar nature proceed is appealable (B) holding that a stay order is appealable because it amounts to a refusal to hear and decide a case (C) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment (D) holding that grant or denial of debtors claim of property exemption is final appealable order (E) holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired
Output (English): holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment