09-4688-cv Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Dangtran UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of May, two thousand and ten.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY , Circuit Judges, BRIAN M. COGAN , District Judge.* -------------------------------------------x DOCTOR ’S ASSOCIATES, INC ., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 09-4688-cv JOE DANGTRAN , Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FOR APPELLANT: Frank J. Scinto, Gager, Emerson, Rickart, Bower & Scalzo LLP, Southbury, Connecticut.

* The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FOR APPELLEE: Erika L. Amarante & Tahlia Townsend, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, Connecticut.

Appeal from a October 9, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Peter C. Dorsey, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellee Doctor’s Associates, Inc. moved under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, to compel defendant-appellant Joe Dangran to arbitrate certain claims in accordance with a franchise agreement between the parties. The District Court granted the motion to arbitrate, and Dangtran brought this timely appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this action, and the issues raised on appeal.

“We review de novo a judgment of the district court staying or compelling arbitration.” Collins & Aikman Prods. Co. v. Bldg. Sys., 58 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1995). Undertaking that review, we affirm the District Court’s ruling for substantially the reasons set forth in the Court’s order of October 8, 2009.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the October 9, 2009 judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court