Court Opinion

ID: 2964964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:31.609693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:42.617588
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1407

                                   MICHAEL NWOGUGU,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  PAINEWEBBER INC.,
                  AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PAINEWEBBER PROPERTIES,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

        Misc. No. 97-8020

                               IN RE:  MICHAEL NWOGUGU,
                                     Petitioner.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                       Boudin, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                ______________

                                 ____________________

            Michael Nwogugu on brief pro se.
            _______________
            David  J.   Kerman,  Mark  C.   DiVincenzo  and   Jackson,  Lewis,
            __________________   _____________________        ________________
        Schnitzler & Krupman on brief for appellees.
        ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                   OCTOBER 2, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Michael Nwogugu  appeals  pro se  from  a
                 __________                               ___ __

            district  court judgment dismissing his complaint in light of

            pending arbitration,  as well  as  from the  denial of  post-

            judgment motions  to reconsider and  to reopen his case.   We

            affirm.1
                   1

                 Contrary  to Nwogugu's suggestion, we think this case is

            governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"),  9 U.S.C.   

            1-16, because  there was  a written  agreement  to submit  an

            existing controversy  to arbitration, see  9 U.S.C.   2.   We
                                                  ___

            reject   Nwogugu's  contention  that   he  falls  within  the

            exclusionary clause  in    1 of the  FAA because  the dispute

            arises  out of  an  employment  contract.   In  Dickstein  v.
                                                            _________

            duPont,  443  F.2d  783,  785 (1st  Cir.  1971),  this  court
            ______

            narrowly  construed  the     1  exclusion  of  "contracts  of

            employment of . . .  workers engaged in foreign or interstate

                                
            ____________________

               1Nwogugu also seeks,  by way of separate  motions, summary
               1
            disposition  of the instant appeal and reconsideration of our
            previous  denial of mandamus  relief.  Although  Nwogugu does
            not  seek  mandamus  relief  on  the  ground  that  appellate
            jurisdiction  may  be  lacking,   and  appellees  have  never
            questioned our appellate jurisdiction, we note that it is not
            entirely  clear that the dismissal in favor of arbitration is
            a  final, appealable order.  Compare McCarthy v. Providential
                                         _______ ________    ____________
            Corp., 1997 WL 471876, at **2-4 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 1997) (2-1
            _____
            decision)  (dismissing, as  interlocutory, appeal  from order
            compelling arbitration and dismissing  complaint) with Armijo
                                                              ____ ______
            v. Prudential  Ins. Co.  of America, 72  F.3d 793,  979 (10th
               ________________________________
            Cir. 1995)  (holding that dismissal  as a result of  order to
            compel arbitration  presents an  appealable final  decision).
            We  need not resolve the jurisdictional  issue since it would
            not  alter the  outcome.   We  deny the  motions for  summary
            disposition  and reconsideration  of the  denial  of mandamus
            relief on the ground that we  have found no error, much  less
            clear and indisputable error. 

                                         -2-

            commerce"  as  limited  to those  employees  "involved  in or

            closely related to the actual movement of goods in interstate

            commerce."  Nwogugu was a real estate analyst.   Since he was

            not  involved in  the  transportation industry  (or otherwise

            involved in the  movement of goods), the  exclusionary clause

            does not apply. 

                 Although  Nwogugu  cites  to   civil  rights  and  other

            statutes  in his  brief, we  are persuaded that  his lawsuit,

            fairly construed, was limited  to common law claims.2   These
                                                                2

            common law  claims  appear to  be,  at bottom,  identical  to

            claims  which Nwogugu agreed  to arbitrate, and,  indeed, was

            pursuing in arbitration  during the pendency of  his lawsuit.

            Under  the  circumstance,  the district  court  appropriately

            dismissed   the  case,  see,  e.g.,  Alford  v.  Dean  Witter
                                    ___   ____   ______      ____________

            Reynolds,  Inc., 975  F.2d 1161,  1164 (5th  Cir.  1992), and
            _______________

            there is no  need for us to address  Nwogugu's arguments that

            various statutory claims are non-arbitrable.3  
                                                        3

                                
            ____________________

               2Nwogugu's  amended complaint lists a series of common law
               2
            claimsand this same list is repeated in subsequent filings.  

               3Nwogugu also contends that his common law claims are non-
               3
            arbitrable  because  punitive  damages  are  unavailable   in
            arbitration.  In support of this argument, he points out that
            the employment contract  provides that it "shall  be governed
            by the law of the State of New York," and that New York state
            law  prohibits  arbitral  awards  of  punitive  damages,  see
                                                                      ___
            Garrity v. Lyle  Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354,  353 N.E.2d 793
            _______    __________________
            (1976).  Nwogugu raised this argument for the first time in a
            post-judgment motion.  See FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d
                                   ___ ____    ________________
            10, 16  (1st Cir.  1992) (observing  that Rule 59(e)  motions
            should  not  be used  to  raise  arguments which  could,  and
            should, have been made before judgment issued).   We perceive

                                         -3-

                 Nwogugu complains  that "justice  and the  right to  due

            process"  demanded that the  district court hold  hearings on

            his various  preliminary  motions (including  motions  for  a

            temporary restraining order,  preliminary injunction, writ of

            attachment, and  summary judgment).    However, the  district

            court properly deferred  ruling on these motions  pending its

            decision on the motion to dismiss, and the dismissal obviated

            the need to explicitly address them.

                 Nwogugu  argues that he was entitled to summary judgment

            on  the ground that  defendants failed to  oppose his (tardy)

            statement of facts.   See Carreiro v.  Rhodes Gill & Co.,  68
                                  ___ ________     _________________

            F.3d  1443, 1446  n.3 (1st Cir.  1995) (observing  that under

            Local  Rule 56.1 of  the District of  Massachusetts, properly

            supported  facts set  forth  by the  moving party  are deemed

            admitted  unless controverted by the factual statement of the

            opposing party).  This argument fails.  Having concluded that

            Nwogugu agreed to  arbitrate his dispute, the  district court

            appropriately refrained from reaching the merits of Nwogugu's

                                
            ____________________

            no manifest error  of law.  "The potential  unavailability of
            punitive damages  is not  a ground for  denying effect  to an
            otherwise valid  agreement to  arbitrate."   Morgan v.  Smith
                                                         ______     _____
            Barney, Harris Upham & Co., 729 F.2d 1163, 1168 n.7 (8th Cir.
            __________________________
            1984).  We add that it is  by no means apparent that punitive
            damages, if otherwise  proper, are unavailable to  Nwogugu in
                                                               _______
            arbitration.   See  Mastrobuono  v. Shearson  Lehman  Hutton,
                           ___  ___________     _________________________
            Inc.,  115  S.  Ct.  1212,  1216 (1995)  (observing  that  if
            ____
            contracting  parties  agree to  include  claims for  punitive
            damages within the  issues to be arbitrated, the  FAA ensures
            that their agreement  will be enforced according to its terms
            even  if a  rule of  state law  would otherwise  exclude such
            claims from arbitration).   

                                         -4-

            motion for summary judgment.   

                 Nwogugu  contends  that  his  lawsuit should  have  been

            reopened based upon  a post-dismissal letter to  the National

            Association of Securities Dealers requesting to withdraw  his

            claims in  arbitration conditional  upon  the district  court

            reopening  his action.   We  disagree.   Having agreed  to an

            alternative  forum, Nwogugu cannot simply change his mind and

            decide  he wants  a  judicial forum  after  all.   Otherwise,

            arbitration agreements would be unenforceable.

                 We   have  carefully   considered  Nwogugu's   remaining

            arguments and reject them as without merit.  Accordingly, the

            judgment below is affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -5-