DMJM v. The Architects

USCA1 Opinion









July 11, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 94-1173

DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL and
DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

THE ARCHITECTS COLLABORATIVE, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________


____________________

Before

Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,

Circuit Judges.
______________


____________________


Robert G. Abrams, with whom Lee P. Curtis, Joanne E. Caruso,
_________________ ______________ _________________
Robert E. Leidenheimer, Jr., Howrey & Simon, A. Van C. Lanckton, and
___________________________ ______________ ___________________
Craig and MaCauley, P.C., were on brief for appellants.
________________________
John A.D. Gilmore, with whom Carl M. Sapers and Hill & Barlow
__________________ _______________ ______________
were on brief for appellee.


____________________



____________________
























Per Curiam. This appeal from a district court order
Per Curiam
__________

denying appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction against

the continuation of arbitration proceedings before the American

Arbitration Association ("AAA") is dismissed as moot, see McLane
___ ______

v. Mercedes-Benz of No. Am., 3 F.3d 522, 524 (1st Cir. 1993), due
________________________

to the issuance, on June 15, 1994, of an arbitral award in the

AAA proceedings sought to be enjoined by appellants. According-

ly, the appeal is summarily dismissed, see Loc. R. 27.1, with
___

costs to appellee, and the case is remanded to the district court

for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED
__ _______