DMJM v. The Architects

Opinion

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July 11, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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
                    __ _______