Case ID: f-appx_422/html/0053-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas A. BANUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 10-2189-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 20, 2011.
    Mark R. Thierman (Leon Greenberg, on the brief), Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Samuel S. Shaulson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is requested to amend the official caption to read as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs Thomas Banus, Brent Bishop, Navid Alipour, Aníbal Drelichman, Guido Alvarez, and Robert Guisti (collectively, “plaintiffs”) are former financial consultants for defendant Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“defendant”). This action arises from a dispute regarding promissory notes signed by plaintiffs, and arbitration of that dispute conducted before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Plaintiffs appeal a series of decisions by the District Court (a) dismissing plaintiff Banus’s- request to have the arbitration award set aside and (b) dismissing plaintiffs’ various claims for relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case and we review de novo a district court’s grant of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Strougo v. Bassini, 282 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2002).

In its careful Memorandum Opinion of April 23, 2010, the District Court explained that the question of whether FINRA Rule 13204 barred the arbitration panel from hearing claims against Banus was a procedural question which, under the arbitration agreement signed by the parties, was properly decided by arbitrators and dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claims for relief on the alternative grounds that (1) plaintiffs were bound by a valid arbitration agreement and (2) plaintiffs failed to state a claim. See Banus v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., No. 09 Civ. 7128(LAK), 2010 WL 1643780 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.23, 2010). For substantially the reasons offered by the District Court, we affirm the judgment as to all claims.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed the record and, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.