Circuit Court of Appeals, see Vestax Sec. Corp. v. McWood, 280 F.3d 1078, 1082 (6th Cir.2002) (following John Hancock and rejecting the notion that NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure requires the defendant-investors be direct customers of the NASD member firm in order to compel arbitration against the member), and a plethora of district courts for the proposition that a customer need not “demonstrate that it dealt directly with the NASD member” in order to compel that member into arbitration. Washington Square Sec., Inc. v. Aune, 253 F.Supp.2d 839, 844 (W.D.N.C.2003) (internal citation omitted). “Rather, the direct dealings with an ‘associated person’ [are] sufficient.” Id. (internal citations omitted); Daugherty v. Washington Square Sec., Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d at 689-90 (W.D.Pa.2003) (<HOLDING>); Multi-Financial Sec. Corp. v. Brown, 2002 WL
holding that a nasd member is required to arbitrate claims brought by the customer of an associated person holding that investors who were customers of an associated person were not customers of a nasd member without evidence of a firsthand customer relationship holding that customers of registered representative were customers of memberfirm holding that plaintiffs who are customers of a registered representative of a nasd member firm are customers of the nasd member firm for purposes of compelling arbitration holding that plaintiff who was iranian is a member of a protected class