Yaffe v. Smith Barney Division of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Yaffe v. Smith Barney Division of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

177 F. App'x 567

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2006

DocketNo. 05-55365; D.C. No. CV-03-04731-PA

StatusPublished

This text of 177 F. App'x 567 (Yaffe v. Smith Barney Division of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yaffe v. Smith Barney Division of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 177 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Steven Yaffe appeals pro se the district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitration award. We conclude the arbitrator’s decision was not made in “manifest disregard for the law” and, accordingly, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Yaffe sought arbitration after he was discharged from his job at the Smith Barney Division of the Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“Smith Barney”) for allegedly engaging in unauthorized trading, failing to follow instructions, and misrepresenting facts to his supervisor. The arbitrator ruled against Yaffe, concluding “the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Yaffe did commit the offending acts.” Yaffe moved to vacate the decision, contending the arbitrator failed to address all of his arguments, there was not “good cause” for his termination, Smith Barney failed to investigate and provide him an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the arbitrator erred by not imposing penalties for Smith Barney’s delays in paying Yaffe his earned commissions and returning his investment funds.

We conclude these arguments are beyond the “extremely limited” scope of review of an arbitration award. See G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir.2003). Such an award must be upheld unless “it constitutes a manifest disregard of the law.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). We have explained that “manifest disregard of the law” means “something more than just an error in the law or a failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law. It must be clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” Carter v. Health Net of California, Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). Here, Yaffe simply disagrees with the arbitrator’s findings and application of law and, accordingly, does not meet the standard of “manifest disregard.” See id. (noting “mere allegations of error are insufficient”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Steven Yaffe appeals pro se the district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitration award. We conclude the arbitrator’s decision was not made in “manifest disregard for the law” and, accordingly, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Yaffe sought arbitration after he was discharged from his job at the Smith Barney Division of the Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“Smith Barney”) for allegedly engaging in unauthorized trading, failing to follow instructions, and misrepresenting facts to his supervisor. The arbitrator ruled against Yaffe, concluding “the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Yaffe did commit the offending acts.” Yaffe moved to vacate the decision, contending the arbitrator failed to address all of his arguments, there was not “good cause” for his termination, Smith Barney failed to investigate and provide him an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the arbitrator erred by not imposing penalties for Smith Barney’s delays in paying Yaffe his earned commissions and returning his investment funds.

We conclude these arguments are beyond the “extremely limited” scope of review of an arbitration award. See G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir.2003). Such an award must be upheld unless “it constitutes a manifest disregard of the law.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). We have explained that “manifest disregard of the law” means “something more than just an error in the law or a failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law. It must be clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” Carter v. Health Net of California, Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). Here, Yaffe simply disagrees with the arbitrator’s findings and application of law and, accordingly, does not meet the standard of “manifest disregard.” See id. (noting “mere allegations of error are insufficient”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F. App'x 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaffe-v-smith-barney-division-of-citigroup-global-markets-inc-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack