Case Name: Steven BENEZRA, individually; Melissa York, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., inclusive, individually; Zacks Investment Management, Inc., inclusive, individually; Leonard Harvey Zacks, Inclusive, individually; Benjamin Laib Zacks, inclusive, individually; Mitchel Ethan Zacks, inclusive, individually, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-13
Citations: 491 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 12-1570
Parties: Steven BENEZRA, individually; Melissa York, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., inclusive, individually; Zacks Investment Management, Inc., inclusive, individually; Leonard Harvey Zacks, Inclusive, individually; Benjamin Laib Zacks, inclusive, individually; Mitchel Ethan Zacks, inclusive, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
Steven BENEZRA, individually; Melissa York, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., inclusive, individually; Zacks Investment Management, Inc., inclusive, individually; Leonard Harvey Zacks, Inclusive, individually; Benjamin Laib Zacks, inclusive, individually; Mitchel Ethan Zacks, inclusive, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1570.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 13, 2012.
Paul A. Demontesquiou, The Law Offices Of Walsh & Demontesquiou, Marvin, North Carolina, for Appellants. Tobias S. Hampson, David N. Jonson, Wyrick, Robbins, Yates & Ponton, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Benezra and Melissa York seek to appeal the district court's order denying their request for a hearing, compelling arbitration, and staying the case pending arbitration. Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act governs appellate review of arbitration orders. 9 U.S.C. § 16 (2006). Section 16(a)(3) provides that "[a]n appeal may be taken from . a final decision with respect to an arbitration." However, § 16(b)(1) provides that "an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order . granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title." The order Benezra seeks to appeal is not a final decision with respect to an arbitration, but rather an interlocutory order granting a stay. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n. 2, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.