Robb v. Lynn, TR et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order The Court hereby confirms the arbitration award of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Dispute Resolution ("FINRA-DR") issued on or about 8/12/2011 against Defendant Barbara A. Lynn in FINRA-DR Case No. 10-02870. The Court's opinion is Nunc Pro Tunc as of 9/6/2017. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/30/2017. (JLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BRIAN J. ROBB,
BARBARA A. LYNN, TR, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:17CV1156
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
ORDER [NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017]
On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff Brian Robb filed an Application to Confirm Arbitration
Award. ECF No. 1. The Court hereby confirms the arbitration award of the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority Dispute Resolution (“FINRA-DR”) issued on or about August 12, 2011
against Defendant Barbara A. Lynn in FINRA-DR Case No. 10-02870.
Plaintiff was the defendant in an arbitration before FINRA-DR, arbitration No. 10-02870,
captioned Barbara A. Lynn, and Barbara A. Lynn, Trustree of the Barbara A. Lynn Trust, under
Agreement dated November 10, 2008 vs. Stifel Nicolaus & Company and Brian J. Robb, et al.
FINRA-DR. During this arbitration, Plaintiff submitted an application for expungement of
records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) of FINRA. On August 12,
2011, FINRA-DR issued an arbitration award. The award included the recommendation of
expungement of any record of the charges brought against Plaintiff in the arbitration that the
CRD maintained. Now, Plaintiff seeks a judgment entry confirming the arbitration award.
II: STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision is “very narrow.” Lattimer-Stevens Co. Vv.
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Dist. 27, Sub-Dist. 5, 913 F.2d 1166, 1169 (6th Cir.
1990). Indeed, it is “one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American
A federal court “must grant [an order confirming an arbitral award] unless the award is
vacated, modified, or corrected.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. In fact, “[t]he Federal Arbitration Act presumes
that arbitration awards will be confirmed.” Dawahare v. Spencer, 210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir.
2000) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9). “Courts thus do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an
arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts. [. . .] [A]s long as the
arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his
authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his
decision.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). Under the
express terms of the FAA, an award may be vacated only in the following instances:
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing,
upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the
controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a
mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
9 U.S.C. § 10.
In this case, the parties arbitrated a dispute, and on August 12, 2011, FINRA-DR issued
an award that included recommending the expungement of records maintained by the CRD as
related to the charges brought against Plaintiff in the arbitration. ECF No. 1-2. Prior to the
arbitration, the parties entered into a submission agreement, whereby a judgment could be
entered upon the arbitration award in any court of competent jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-1.
Based on the narrow standard under which the Court reviews petitions to confirm
arbitration awards, the Court hereby confirms the arbitration award of the“FINRA-DR” issued on
or about August 12, 2011 against Defendant Barbara A. Lynn in FINRA-DR Case No. 1002870.1
During the status conference held on September 6, 2017, the Court indicated that it would
issue judgment based on the record established. See Minutes dated Sept. 6, 2017. Therefore, the
Court’s opinion is nunc pro tunc as of September 6, 2017.
The Court will issue a separate Judgment Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
FINRA-DR Rule 2080 requires parties seeking expungement relief to name
FINRA-DR as an additional party unless it waives the requirement. FINRA-DR has
waived that requirement as to this matter. See ECF No. 1-3.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?