
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          July 11, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                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                    __ _______           
