*1 332
by Exchange and Commission Securities § 15 promulgated under U.S.C. 78s. To In Re: UNITED STATES of that Hawkins claims extent America, Petitioner. conspired with Prudential NASD Hawkins,
relief to or that NASD failed to Prudential, supervise has al- adequately he 78o-3, §
leged of 15 U.S.C. violations registration of statute which allows the self-regulating ex-
NASD as securities U.S;C. § change, 78s(g), 15 which re- compliance
quires the NASD enforce statutes, rules,
applicable reg- securities short, all of
ulations. Hawkins’s claims NASD, though
against carefully articu- law, are
lated in terms state actions law enforce liabilities or
seeking to duties created which governed federal securities laws are pursuant
exclusively federal courts to 15 §
U.S.C. 78aa. subject-matter jurisdic- there is
Because against claims
tion over Hawkins’s
NASD, err
denying the motion to remand.
IV.
The district court was correct to also against the
dismiss the claims NASD. The enjoys immunity
NASD arbitral civil of its acts arbitrators contractually agreed- conducting
course of
upon proceedings. Corey arbitration v. Exch.,
New York Stock F.2d 1208- Sec., Cir.1982); Austin Mun. Inc. cf. Inc., Dealers, Ass’n National Sec. (5th Cir.1985) (NASD F.2d disci 686-93
plinary enjoy immunity). officers official Be
cause NASD is immune from civil liabili
ty arising from its actions taken the course conducting proceedings, Haw arbitration Allen, Keyser Speck, Gary Paula R. Mi- against kins a claim has failed state O’Connor, Justice, Dept, chelle B. U.S. NASD. The district court was correct Div., Section, DC, Appellate Washington, Tax counts against dismiss the NASD. for Petitioner. Elliott, W. William David Kenneth Bier-
V.
macher,
Tolliver, Kane,
Spicer
Catherine
reasons,
For
affirm
the aforementioned
Russell,
Dallas, TX,
Logan,
&
Coleman
judgment
of the district court.
McLendon and McLendon Co.
Jr.,
Sales,
Hughes,
Vester T.
Mark Keith
Henry Billingsley, David
James
John
Schenck,
Luce,
TX,
Dallas,
Hughes
for Tri
&
State Threaters and McLendon Co.
*2
handling
government’s
faces in
the
ever-in-
creasing
litigation.
volume of
Id. at 904-05.
that the district court abused
We concluded
routinely requiring
repre-
in
a
its discretion
government
sentative of the
with ultimate
JONES, BARKSDALE and
Before
pre-
authority
present
at all
settlement
DENNIS,
Judges.
Circuit
Id. at 905.
trial or settlement conferences.
PER CURIAM:
the
Although
suggest
we
not
district
could
such an
we
court
never issue
petition
a
a
States has filed
The United
“less
declared that it should consider
drastic
seeking an order from this
writ of mandamus
steps”
doing
before
so. Id.
court
vacate
directing the district
to
court
February
in
requirement
its order
the
steps
examples of
We set forth
less drastic
in
action
States Gordon
the
United
consider,
the
such as
court
McLendon, Jr.,
al., mandating that the
B.
et
the
to
whether the case
government
declare
represented at mediation
United States be
authority
the
of the
could be settled within
authority.1
settlement
person
a
with full
so, ordering
Attorney, and if
United States
find
the district court has
Because we
the
either attend
United States
to
discretion,
we
the Gov
abused its
not
the
or be available
conference
a writ of mandamus.
petition
ernment’s
telephone to
at the time of
discuss settlement
(5th
Stone,
In re
986 F.2d
Id.
those
the conference.
In
cases which
Cir.1993). However,
request
we
the
litigation
routine
can not be settled within
alternatively ordering
court
district
consider
authority
Attorney,
the
the
States
United
per
person
to
or
the Government
to
government
of the
extend
“and the failure
settlement au
sons
serious, persistent
authority
a
settlement
is
in advance of the
thority consider settlement
problem, substantially hampering
opera-
the
and avail
mediation
docket,”
the
of the
we declared that
tions
by telephone
at
able
action,
as
such
court could take additional
at 905.
time mediation. See id.
the
government to advise it of
“requiring the
DENIED.
for Writ of Mandamus
Petition
hold
identity
of the
or
who
persons to
directing those
authority
such
DENNIS,
Judge, specially
Circuit
in advance of
confer-
concurring:
fully prepared and available
ence and be
the time of
to
discuss settlement
writing
specially
am
to
concur
Id.
conference.”
I believe that a
denial mandamus because
finding
or an issu-
of an abuse of discretion
if the
Finally,
district
we declared
appropriate at
of mandamus is not
ance
an in-
efforts to conduct
court’s reasonable
it
not
time because
is
clear whether
particular
in a
discussion
formed settlement
actually
to
court
failed
consider and
a
offi-
case are thwarted because
alternatives,
all
but
reasonably
to
eliminate
authority
not com-
cial
with
Furthermore,
of “last
the one
resort.”
or
with
counsel
municate
specially
explain
the district court
write
court,
manner,
timely
“as a last
in a
my
underlying
request
and the
reasons
resort,”
appropriate
officials
can
denial of mandamus.
authority to attend
with full settlement
In
specifically GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROAD standing ordinary pretrial order or an settle- ASSOCIATION; CASTING Phase II (3) conference; ment Broadcasting, Inc.; Radio Vanderbilt However, agreed to mediation. Keymarket Orleans, Inc.; of New *3 Attorney still problems General Broadcasting; Professional WGNO given proper weight, consideration and Broadcasting Company, Burnham and, possible, if The district accommodated. Plaintiffs-Appellants, court does indicate it considered or requiring the lesser alternative of tried officer with ultimate settlement America; UNITED STATES of Federal and available Commission, Communications Defendants-Appellees.
mediation, govern- instead ment officialwith that agree the mediation. I the dis- attend alternatively
trict should consider or- dering Attorney General 1998. fully pre-
advance the mediation and
pared by telephone to and available discuss at the time of mediation. be-
lieve this alternative is reasonable
compromise that takes into account both the
court’s to conduct its business in a need
reasonably efficient manner without unneces- resources,
sarily wasting judicial valuable Government’s need centralized
decision-making problems and its
handling ever-increasing litiga- volumes of
tion. I am
While confident that the district court and, feasible,
will consider if the alternative
adjust accordingly, its directives and that comply cooperate
such a reasonable alternative would preju- the writ of mandamus without
dice. that, recognized authority up this court as in the ed Stales has settlement case, $500,000 instant important "settlements in various classes of provided ap agency the client approved Deputy cases must be proves, Department regulations Attorney General or one the Assistant Attor approval Deputy Attorney of either the Gen added). neys (emphasis General.” Id. at 901 In. when, eral Associate or the General suit, seeking to enforce reason, any the settlement of a claim would of an collection $2.2 estate tax more than 0.160(1)(c), $2 §§ million. exceed See 28 C.F.R. million, interest, costs, plus statutory and a 0.161. percent surcharge. Although each local Unit