Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Soliman, No. 1:2015cv01139 - Document 13 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 12 Report and Recommendations. We conclude that the R&R correctly determined that the dismissal order provided by Soliman is not relevant to this proceeding and the R&R properly applied the gov erning law on confirmation of arbitration awards. Since the R&R's recommendation is not clear error, it is adopted in full. Since the Court adopts the R&R, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner in the amount o f $167,855.21 plus interest of 4.17% per annum on the amount of $145,329.21 from March 8, 2014 until the award is paid in full and statutory interest on the remaining amount of award, $22,526.00 from the date of the arbitration aw ard, November 10, 2014, to the date of entry and such interest to continue to accrue until payment is made. The Clerk is also directed to close 15 cv 1139. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 11/4/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)

Download PDF
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Soliman Doc. 13 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: November 4, 2015 Dockets.Justia.com the rate of 4.17% per annum, plus attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $22,526. Id. at 2-3. In support ofhis argument against confirmation ofthe arbitration award, Soliman attaches a dismissal order he received from FINRA in February 2015. See Dkt. 4, at 2. The R&R determined, however, that that dismissal order referred to a different proceeding; it did not dismiss the arbitration award but rather it dismissed FINRA Regulatory Operation's efforts to suspend Soliman's association with FINRA member firms. R&R at 8. Since the arbitration award met all of the requirements of Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the R&R recommended that the award be granted. 1 Id. at 7-9. Soliman does not object. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). When no objections are made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Terio v. Michaud, No. 10 cv 4276 (CS), 2011 WL 2610627, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2011). We conclude that the R&R correctly determined that the dismissal order provided by Soliman is not relevant to this proceeding and the R&R properly applied the governing law on confirmation of arbitration awards. Since the R&R 's recommendation is not clear error, it is adopted in full. 1 The relevant part of Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act reads: If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no comt is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. 9 U.S.C § 9. 2 Copy mailed by chambers to: Mark P. Soliman 2 Colonial Parkway Yonkers, NY 10710

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.