Case Name: MULTIUT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNEGY, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-10
Citations: 263 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 06-16162
Parties: MULTIUT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNEGY, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
MULTIUT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNEGY, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-16162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2008.
Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
Paul T. Fox, Esq., Howard K. Jeruchimowitz, Esq., Paul Alexis Del Aguila, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, Chicago, IL, Alan Jay Mandel, Esq., Alan Jay Mandel, Esq., Skokie, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Barry S. Hyman, Esq., Samantha C. Norris, Esq., William M. Hannay, Esq., Schiff Hardin & Waite The Sears Tower, Chicago, IL, John M. Grenfell, Esq., Michael J. Kass, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, Douglas R. Tribble, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant's motion for summary reversal is granted in light of this court's decision in E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Encana, 503 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.2007).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.