Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin

Fifth Circuit

Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin

824 F.2d 439, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 824 F.2d 439 (Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin, 824 F.2d 439, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This case is now before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. After our decision reversing in part and affirming in part the district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims, Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin, 803 F.2d 157 (5th Cir.1986), defendant Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 15, 1987, the Court entered the following order on Shearson Lehman Brothers’ petition:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 95 L.Ed.2d [185] (1987).

Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Mayaja, Inc., — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3205, 96 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987). In Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 95 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987), the Supreme Court held, implicitly overruling Fifth Circuit precedent controlling Part III(A) of our opinion, see 803 F.2d at 162, that the Federal Arbitration Act requires [440]*440the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. McMahon, 107 S.Ct. at 2343. The Court further held, as we had in Part III(B) of our opinion, see 803 F.2d at 162-66, that the Arbitration Act also requires the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate claims brought under the civil, treble-damages provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. McMahon, 107 S.Ct. at 2343-46. The Court’s holding in McMahon is to be applied retroactively, even though, in the case of the 1934 Act claim, it overturns clearly established precedent in this circuit. See Noble v. Drexel, Burham, Lambert, Inc., 823 F.2d 849 (5th Cir.1987) (conducting re-troactivity analysis of McMahon according to factors set out in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)).

Consistent with the mandate of the Supreme Court, we now REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s order with instruction to compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs’ claims in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act and relevant agency regulations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This case is now before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. After our decision reversing in part and affirming in part the district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims, Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin, 803 F.2d 157 (5th Cir.1986), defendant Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 15, 1987, the Court entered the following order on Shearson Lehman Brothers’ petition:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 95 L.Ed.2d [185] (1987).

Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Mayaja, Inc., — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3205, 96 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987). In Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 95 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987), the Supreme Court held, implicitly overruling Fifth Circuit precedent controlling Part III(A) of our opinion, see 803 F.2d at 162, that the Federal Arbitration Act requires [440]*440the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. McMahon, 107 S.Ct. at 2343. The Court further held, as we had in Part III(B) of our opinion, see 803 F.2d at 162-66, that the Arbitration Act also requires the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate claims brought under the civil, treble-damages provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. McMahon, 107 S.Ct. at 2343-46. The Court’s holding in McMahon is to be applied retroactively, even though, in the case of the 1934 Act claim, it overturns clearly established precedent in this circuit. See Noble v. Drexel, Burham, Lambert, Inc., 823 F.2d 849 (5th Cir.1987) (conducting re-troactivity analysis of McMahon according to factors set out in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)).

Consistent with the mandate of the Supreme Court, we now REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s order with instruction to compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs’ claims in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act and relevant agency regulations.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 F.2d 439, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayaja-inc-v-bodkin-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack