
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        April 8, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
