Categories: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES INC. v. DANGTRAN, 378 Fed.Appx. 106 (2nd Cir. 2010)

DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe DANGTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-4688-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 25, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from a October 9, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Peter C. Dorsey, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHERE-OF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Frank J. Scinto, Gager, Emerson, Rickart, Bower Scalzo LLP, Southbury, CT, for Appellant.

Erika L. Amarante Tahlia Townsend, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.[*]

[*] The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellee Doctor’s Associates, Inc. moved under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, to compel defendant-appellant Joe Dangtran to arbitrate certain claims in accordance with a franchise agreement between the parties. The District Court granted the motion to arbitrate, and Dangtran brought this timely appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this action, and the issues raised on appeal.

“We review de novo a judgment of the district court staying or compelling arbitration.” Collins Aikman Prods. Co. v. Bldg. Sys., 58 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1995). Undertaking that review, we affirm the District Court’s ruling for substantially the reasons set forth in the Court’s order of October 8, 2009.

Page 107

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the October 9, 2009 judgment isAFFIRMED.

jdjungle