Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=18-1750&s=OK&d=125579
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:12:12+00:00

Document:
I), No. 17-259WES, 2018 WL 3655785, at *1 (D.R.I. Aug. 2, 2018).
We refer to the order and the R&R, together, as Patton I.
JLF (his eponymous law firm).
ARA), which contained a three-paragraph arbitration provision.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
alia, on the plaintiffs' suit.
a malpractice suit against him.
WL 2991939, at *4 (Tex. App. July 14, 2017), review dismissed (Aug.
contain a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.
Accordingly, the arbitrator dismissed the JAMS proceeding.
Court for the Northern District of Texas.
the 2013 employment agreement did not in any way bind Patton.
procedural wrinkle. We then proceed to the merits.
A. Judicial Review of the R&R.
a case or of a claim or defense within a case." PowerShare, Inc.
magistrate judge may decide a non-dispositive motion, see Fed R.
dispositive motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999).
and recommended a decision. See Patton I, 2018 WL 3655785, at *1.
review "cured any arguable defect" in magistrate judge's order).
of review to the questions at issue.
P.R., Inc., 680 F.3d 118, 121 (1st Cir. 2012).
scope." InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 142 (1st Cir. 2003).
lays siege to this conclusion.
F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2017); see Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v.
El Día, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 89 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Pac.
(1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S.
correctness of the earlier determination of a precluded issue.
Vargas-Colón v. Fundación Damas, Inc., 864 F.3d 14, 29 (1st Cir.
2017) (quoting B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S.
Ct. 1293, 1308 (2015)) (alteration in original).
527 (1st Cir. 1995); see, e.g., Montana v. United States, 440 U.S.
F.2d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 1987).
relied on the facts surrounding the plaintiffs' engagement of JLF.
an arbitrator. This is whistling past the graveyard.
there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so." Id.
Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)).
The decision in Cleveland Electric is instructive.
the question of arbitrability to arbitration." 514 U.S. at 947.
that the Sixth Circuit found persuasive in Cleveland Electric.
whether claims arising under the ARA were arbitrable.
question. Instead, he contends that Texas law should control.
State from which the judgments emerged." Kremer v. Chem. Const.
common law, see McDonald v. City of W. Branch, Mich., 466 U.S.
and Procedure § 4475.1 (2d ed. 2002); see W.J. O'Neil Co. v.
unconfirmed arbitral awards as "underdeveloped and murky").
88 (1984)) (emphasis in original).
Sec. Corp., 317 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Borden v.
Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370, 375 (1st Cir. 1991)).
Patton I, 2018 WL 3655785, at *7 n. 10.
F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2010)).
review of the magistrate judge's ruling or recommendation.").
To say more on this point would be to paint the lily.
their privies in future proceedings." Commercial Union Ins. Co.
& Sons, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 635 A.2d 1181, 1186 (R.I.
judge's analysis under Rhode Island collateral estoppel law.
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4475
 v.

 v.

 v.