Jason v. Amer Arb Assn ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    ---------------------
    No. 02-30615
    Summary Calendar
    ---------------------
    ANDREW JASON; IRVIN ROSS, SR.;
    ARMAND DINET, II; RUDOLPH WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.;
    UNIDENTIFIED PARTY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 02-0474
    --------------------
    March 7, 2003
    Before      BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appellants claims that the district court improperly
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    dismissed their breach of contract and negligence claims against
    appellee for their alleged failure to state a claim upon which
    relief can be granted.              See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).                  Appellants
    averred that the appellee failed to administer an arbitration in
    which they were the non-prevailing party in a fair and equitable
    manner.       The district court held that appellee was entitled to
    arbitral immunity, and appellants’ claims were therefore barred.
    We agree.**
    We review the district court's dismissal of a complaint for
    failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de
    novo.       Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 
    197 F.3d 161
    , 164 (5th
    Cir. 1999).        We must determine whether the district court
    correctly held that when viewed in the light most favorable to
    the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the
    complaint nonetheless failed to state any valid claim for relief.
    
    Id.
    Judicial immunity has been adapted to protect the arbiter in
    the dispute resolution process in this Circuit, as well as in all
    other federal courts of appeal that have considered the
    **
    Appellants’ argument regarding the constitutionality of the Federal Arbitration Act was
    not raised in the district court, and is therefore not considered on appeal. Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp.
    V. Kline, 
    845 F.2d 1300
    , 1307 (5th Cir. 1988); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 
    37 F.3d 1069
    , 1071 n.1
    (5th Cir. 1994).
    -2-
    question.***      Hawkins v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 
    149 F.3d 330
     (5th Cir. 1998)(per curiam).                    Arbitral immunity “is
    essential to protect decision-makers from undue influence and the
    process from reprisals by dissatisfied litigants.”                          New England
    Cleaning Serv., Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 
    199 F.3d 542
    , 545
    (1st Cir. 1999).          The organizations that sponsor arbitrations are
    entitled to immunity from civil liability as well with regard to
    the tasks that they perform that are integrally related to the
    arbitration.        
    Id.
        See also Hawkins, 
    149 F.3d at 332
     (granting
    the NASD arbitral immunity from civil liability for the acts of
    its arbitrators).          Appellee’s refusal to disqualify the
    arbitrator in appellants’ arbitration falls within the scope of
    the immunity.         See New England Cleaning Serv., Inc., 
    199 F.3d at 545
     (holding that arbitrator selection is sufficiently related to
    the arbitration process to qualify for arbitral immunity); Olson
    v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, 
    85 F.3d 381
    , 383 (8th
    Cir. 1996)(same).          That appellee may have violated its internal
    rules in denying appellants’ motion for recusal is immaterial.
    See Olson, 
    85 F.3d at 383
    .               The district court properly held that
    ***
    New England Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. AAA, 
    199 F.3d 542
    , 545 (1st Cir. 1999); Honn v.
    Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, 
    182 F.3d 1014
    , 1018 (8th Cir. 1999); Shrader v. NASD, Inc., 
    855 F.Supp. 122
    , 123-24 (E.D.N.C. 1994), aff'd, 
    54 F.3d 774
     (4th Cir.1995) (unpublished per
    curiam); Austern v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc., 
    898 F.2d 882
    , 886 (2d. Cir. 1990); Wasyl,
    Inc. v. First Boston Corp., 
    813 F.2d 1579
    , 1582 (9th Cir.1987); Corey v. New York Stock
    Exchange, 
    691 F.2d 1205
    , 1208-11 (6th Cir. 1982); Tamari v. Conrad, 
    552 F.2d 778
    , 780 (7th
    Cir. 1977).
    -3-
    appellants’ suit is barred under the doctrine of arbitral immunity.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    -4-