* 

### The Clerk of Court is requested to amend the official caption to read as shown above. 1 10-2189-cv Thomas Banus, et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summa ry order in a document f iled with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or anelectronic database (wit h the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serv e a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthou se, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 20 th day of May, two thousand eleven. PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , C HESTER J. S TRAUB , REENA R AGGI , Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x T HOMAS A. B ANUS , ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED , ET AL
. Plaintiffs-Appellants , v. No. 10-2189-cv C ITIGROUP G LOBAL MARKETS , I NC ., FORMERLY KNOWN AS S ALOMON S MITH B ARNEY H OLDINGS I NC ., ET AL
. Defendants-Appellees.* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: M ARK R. T HIERMAN (Leon Greenberg, on the brief ), Las Vegas, NV. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: S AMUEL S. S HAULSON , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY.

### 2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge ). UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiffs Thomas Banus, Brent Bishop, Navid A lipour, Anibal 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 conducte d 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 arbitr ation panel from hearing claims against Banus was a procedural question which, under the arbitrati on agreement signed by the parties, was properly decided by arbitrators and dismissed plaintiffs’ rema ining claims for relief on th e alternative grounds that (1) plaintiffs were bound by a valid arbitration agr eement 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 an d, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court