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April 8, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-