Case Name: TELEVISA S.A.DE C.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DTVLA WC INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-06
Citations: 366 F.3d 981
Docket Number: No. 02-56798
Parties: TELEVISA S.A.DE C.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DTVLA WC INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 366
Pages: 981–982

Head Matter:
TELEVISA S.A.DE C.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DTVLA WC INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-56798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 6, 2004.
Patricia L. Glaser, Esq., H. Seong Kim, Esq., Christensen Miller Fink Jacobs Glaser Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Helen B. Kim, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Los Angeles, CA, Douglas H. Flaum, Brett D. Jaffe, Lisa H. Bebchick, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert D. Crockett, Esq., Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellee.
Before GOODWIN, BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
It has come to the court's attention that we may lack jurisdiction over Televisa's appeal. We withdraw our opinion filed on April 1, 2004. We direct the parties to submit letter briefs not exceeding 5 pages in length within 30 days of the date of this order, addressing the following issues:
(1) Whether appellate jurisdiction over the district court's denial of Televisa's motion for a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(4).
(2) Whether, if governed by 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(4), the district court's denial of Televisa's motion for a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration nonetheless forms a basis under Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir.1997), or any other case, for jurisdiction to review the district court's order granting DTVLA's motion to compel.
(3) Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order granting DTVLA's motion to compel independent of the district court's denial of Te-levisa's motion for preliminary injunction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), which provides that an appeal may be taken from "a final a decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title." See Prudential Ins. Co. v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir.1994).