Court Opinion

ID: 2965192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:03.033986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:50.854018
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________

No. 97-2240

                     NORMAN J. WEINSTEIN, ET AL.,

                        Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                  v.

                         LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON,

                         Defendant, Appellant.
                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

              [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                        Torruella, Chief Judge,
                   Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

                         ____________________

    M. Robert Dushman and Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer, P.C. on brief
for appellant.
    Bernard Bressler and Bressler, Amery & Ross on brief for appellees
Norman J. Weinstein and Richard F. Toro.

                         ____________________

                             March 4, 1998
                         ____________________

      Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the submissions of the
    parties and the record on appeal, and we affirm.  The question
    of whether an arbitrable issue existed was properly before the
    district court.  See First Options, Inc. v. Kaplan, 115 S.Ct.
    1920, 1924-25 (1995) (question of whether an issue is subject
    to arbitration should be decided by a court, unless the parties
    specifically provided otherwise); AT&T Technologies, Inc. v.
    Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)
    (same).  Appellant's argument that arbitration should have been
    allowed because appellant might later be liable to the
    guarantor was not raised below, so it is waived.  In re Rauh,
    119 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 1997).  Because the district court
    has allowed arbitration on other related issues since this
    appeal was filed, and that ruling has gone unchallenged, we
    need not address appellant's remaining argument.
        Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.