Legal Opinion
Goodman v. CIBC Oppenheimer & Co.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided February 12, 2001No. CV 00-9588-GAFPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
FEESS, District Judge.
I
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Goodman, a customer of CIBC Oppenheimer & Co., arbitrated a variety of securities fraud claims against Oppenheimer and their employee, defendant Mirco Teta, before an NASD arbitration panel. Having sought nearly $3,000,000 in damages, but achieving an award of only $74,030.75, Goodman petitions this Court to vacate the award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act on the ground that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law. The Court need not reach the merits of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Strawbridge v. CurtissSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vernon Vu Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. FelizardoDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2003
- Reichle v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2005
- Upper Deck Co. v. American International Specialty Lines InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2007
- Vernon Vu Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004