United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1259

___________ Isadore Fendelman; Bernice * Fendelman, *

Plaintiffs - * District Court for the Appellees, * Eastern District of Missouri v. * Jerry Stein; *

Defendant - Appellant, * Newhard Cook & Company; Advest, * Inc., * Defendants. * Appeal from the United States

*
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*

*

___________ Submitted: September 9, 1997 Filed: January 6, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

## The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 

## District of Missouri. -2- JerryStein appeals the district court’s order confirming a n 1 arbitrationaward and entering judgment in favor of Isadore and Bernic e Fen delman. Stein argues the district court lacked subject matte r jurisdiction to enter this order. We affirm.
On J anuary 25, 1990, the Fendelmans brought suit in federal distric t co urt against their broker, Jerry Stein, and other defendants not involve d in this appeal. Their complaint alleged federal securities law violations, federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) vio lations, and va rious state law claims. In April 1994, the district court grante d Stein’s request to stay the proceedings in the district court pendin g arbitration by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD). In the NASD arbitration, the Fendelmans made the same factual allegat ions and legal cla ims against Stein as they had made in their complaint filed i n district court. The arbitrators ruled in favor of the Fendelmans based o n their state law claims, awarding $338,000 in actual damages, $165,000 i n punitive damage s, $24,000 for attorneys’ fees, and $250 for the arbitration filing fee. Th e arbitrators denied all the Fendelmans’ federal law claims.
In September 1995, the Fendelmans moved the district court to confirm the NASD arbitration award and enter judgment against Stein. Stein r esponded byfiling a motion to dismiss, arguing the district court lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction because the arbitrator s had denied the Fendelmans relief on their federal law claims, and

## Subsequent to the filing of the Fendelmans’ complaint in this case, Congres s 2 

## codified the common law doctrine of pendent jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994), as “supplemental jurisdiction.” Because this case was filed prior to its enactment, we refer to the common law terminology of “pendent” jurisdiction. -3- therefore, the court no longer had federal question or pendent jurisdiction 2 over the remaining state law claims. The district court denied Stein’ s motion to dismi ss, confirmed the arbitration award, and entered judgment in favor of the Fendelmans. Stein argues that the NASD arbitrators’ denial of the Fendelmans ’ fed eral law claims divested the district court of subject matte r jurisdiction. All parties agree that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Fendelmans’ complaint. The court had jurisdict ion over the federal law

claims pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims because th ey arose from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as the federal claims . United Mine Workers v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Under the co mmon law do ctrine of pendent jurisdiction, a federal court can decide a plaintiff’ s state law claims arising from the same set of facts as the plaintiff’ s federal claim even if the court rules against the plaintiff on the federa l claims. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. , 213 U.S. 175, 191 (190 9). The NASD arbitrators ruled in favor of the Fendelmans on their state law claims, but against the m on their federal law claims. This was analogous to a jury award finding f or the plaintiffs on their state law claims and against them on the ir federal law claims, which certainly would not divest the federa l court of jurisd iction to enter judgment on the award. Under the holding in Siler , it is clear that the arbitration award did not divest the federa l court of its subject matter jurisdiction.

## -4-

Theref ore, we hold the district court had subject matter jurisdiction t o confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment in favor of the Fendelmans.
A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.