[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-13220 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 26, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-22392-CV-UUB
ROBERT ESCOBIO,
CLAUDIO SALAZAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, aka Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(January 26, 2006)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I. BACKGROUND
This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiffs’ verified motion to
vacate an arbitration award and granting defendants’ motion to confirm the award.
The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in finding
that the arbitration panel did not engage in any misbehavior by which the rights of
the plaintiff brokers had been prejudiced within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. §
10(a)(3); and (2) whether the district court erred in finding that the arbitration
panel did not act in manifest disregard of the law when it ruled in favor of
defendant Smith Barney.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s order on a motion to vacate or confirm an
arbitration award for clear error with respect to factual findings and de novo with
respect to the district court’s legal conclusions. See, e.g., Gianelli Money
Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 146 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th
Cir. 1998); Montes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 128 F.3d 1456, 1459 n. 3
(11th Cir. 1997).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the district court correctly determined that the arbitration panel did not engage in
misbehavior prejudicing the plaintiff brokers. We also conclude from the record
2
that the district court correctly determined that the arbitration panel’s decision was
amply supported by the record evidence. Finally, we conclude that the district
court correctly found that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law
when it issued its award in favor of Smith Barney.
For the foregoing reasons, and because we conclude from the record that
there is no merit to any of the arguments the plaintiff brokers present in this
appeal, we affirm the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ verified motion
to vacate arbitration award and the defendant’s motion to confirm the award.
AFFIRMED.
3