Court Opinion

ID: 2963965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:13.436927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.122505
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        April 8, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2222

                                   MICHAEL COFFEY,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    ERNEST WINSKE,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.

        No. 95-2223

                                   MICHAEL COFFEY,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    DAVID WINSKE,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge, 
                                          ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            John J. Washburn on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Dallas W. Haines III on brief for appellee.
            ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Having reviewed  carefully the  record in
                 ___________

            this  case, we  affirm the  order confirming  the arbitration

            award to appellees  essentially for the reasons  given by the

            district court  in its  memorandum and order  dated September

            15, 1995.1
                     1

                 Appellant Coffey's  contention that the  National Future

            Association   [NFA]  was  without  jurisdiction  to  consider

            appellees' claims is without merit.   Uncontradicted evidence

            was introduced  through sworn  affidavits that Coffey,  as an

            associate member of  the NFA,  agreed to abide  by the  NFA's

            Code  of Arbitration.  That code clearly states that disputes

            involving commodity futures "shall  be arbitrated under  this

            Code."  

                 The    arbitrators'   finding   that    Coffey   was   a

            "salesperson," and  hence still  subject to claims  by those,

            like  appellees, who  chose to  opt out  of an  earlier class

            settlement, was well within the arbitrators' discretion, see,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., El Dorado Technical Services v. Union General, 961 F.2d
            ____  ____________________________    _____________

            317,  320  (1st Cir.  1992)  ("as a  general  proposition, an

            arbitrator's  factual  findings  are  not  open  to  judicial

            challenge"),  as  was  their  determination  that  appellees'

            claims  were not time barred  under the NFA  Code, see United
                                                               ___ ______

            Paperworkers' Int'l  Union v.  Misco, Inc.,  484 U.S.  29, 38
            __________________________     ___________

                                
            ____________________

               1Appellees' "motion to adopt previously filed memoranda as
               1
            brief on appeal" is granted.
                                _______

                                         -2-

            (1987)  ("as   long  as  the  arbitrator   is  even  arguably

            construing  or applying  the contract  and acting  within the

            scope  of  his  authority,  that  a  court  is  convinced  he

            committed  serious error  does  not suffice  to overturn  his

            decision");  Moses  H.  Cone  Memorial  Hospital  v.  Mercury
                         ___________________________________      _______

            Construction  Corp., 460  U.S. 1,  24-25 (1983)  ("any doubts
            ___________________

            concerning the scope of  arbitrable issues should be resolved

            in favor of arbitration,  whether the problem at hand  is the

            construction of the contract language itself or an allegation

            of waiver, delay or a like defense to arbitrability").

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-