Case Name: Wanda GREENWOOD; Ladelle Hatfield; Deborah McCleese, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION and Columbus Bank and Trust, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-27
Citations: 674 F.3d 1095
Docket Number: No. 09-15906
Parties: Wanda GREENWOOD; Ladelle Hatfield; Deborah McCleese, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION and Columbus Bank and Trust, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 674
Pages: 1095–1095

Head Matter:
Wanda GREENWOOD; Ladelle Hatfield; Deborah McCleese, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION and Columbus Bank and Trust, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-15906.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 27, 2012.
Jay Smith, Adrian Barnes, Laurie Adrea Traktman, Gilbert & Saekman A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, Kasie M. Bras-well, Steven Anthony Martino, TaylorMartino-Zarzaur, P.C., Mobile, AL, U.W. demon, Esquire, Gregory H. Hawley, Christopher J. Nicholson, White Arnold & Dowd P.C., Richard R. Rosenthal, Law Offices of Richard R. Rosenthal, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
James R. McGuire, Esquire, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Susan L. Germaise, McGuirewoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David L. Hartsell, McGuire-woods LLP, Chicago, IL, Tim A. O’Brien, Brian Matsui, Deanne Maynard, Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Pursuant to the Opinion of the Supreme Court in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586 (2012), the district court's decision denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is VACATED. The matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.