Case Name: 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Randall BLEVINS; Kathy Digruilles; James Cobble; Brina Healy; Julia Mucheke-Barrett; Peter Saldoriga; Loren Simpson; Charles Smith; Benjamin Stanczik; Freddie Tubbs; Kyil Waits; Deborah Buffamanti; David Vine; Juan Castillo; Lennox Crawford; Thomas Demiris; Kimberly Koppelman; Redwan Negash, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-05
Citations: 710 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 17-10160
Parties: 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Randall BLEVINS; Kathy Digruilles; James Cobble; Brina Healy; Julia Mucheke-Barrett; Peter Saldoriga; Loren Simpson; Charles Smith; Benjamin Stanczik; Freddie Tubbs; Kyil Waits; Deborah Buffamanti; David Vine; Juan Castillo; Lennox Crawford; Thomas Demiris; Kimberly Koppelman; Redwan Negash, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Randall BLEVINS; Kathy Digruilles; James Cobble; Brina Healy; Julia Mucheke-Barrett; Peter Saldoriga; Loren Simpson; Charles Smith; Benjamin Stanczik; Freddie Tubbs; Kyil Waits; Deborah Buffamanti; David Vine; Juan Castillo; Lennox Crawford; Thomas Demiris; Kimberly Koppelman; Redwan Negash, Defendants-Appellees
No. 17-10160
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 5, 2018
Gavin Samuel Martinson, Jeremy William Hays, Andrew Thomas Turner, Attorney, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq., Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Plantation, FL, Jimmy Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
Before WIENER, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
20/20 Communications appeals the order denying a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the defendants from arbitrating their claims against the plaintiff as a class and from asking an arbitrator to determine the availability of class arbitrations. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, with limited exceptions inapplicable here, we are not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(4) (2012).
We DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.