OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., PETITIONER,
v.
MARCIA YOUNG, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reconsidered its prior holding that the Florida Securities Act precluded enforcement of arbitration agreements in securities transactions, after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts such state law restrictions. The court affirmed its earlier ruling that the petitioner had not waived its right to arbitration, despite not invoking it in federal court, because such a right was not clearly available under then-existing law.
The Federal Arbitration Act preempts Florida's Securities Act restriction on arbitrating securities claims. However, the petitioner did not waive its right to arbitration by failing to invoke it in federal court at a time when the law did not clearly permit such claims to be arbitrated, and the court declines to hold the petitioner to knowledge of future legal developments.
[1] The Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements on pendent state law claims, preempting state law to the contrary.
[2] A party is not required to anticipate future developments in the law when deciding whether to invoke a right to compel arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements on pendent state law claims. The effect of this holding is to preempt the state law on which we relied.”
Establishes that the U.S. Supreme Court's Dean Witter decision overturned the Florida Supreme Court's reliance on state law to restrict arbitration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOppenheimer & Co. and Marcia Young had a dispute concerning securities transactions governed by an arbitration agreement. The case was initially decid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Agreement Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The United States Supreme Court has entered an order * vacating Oppenheimer & Co. v. Young, 456 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1984), and remanding the cause for further consideration in light of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Supplemental briefs from the parties have been received and considered.
In our original decision, we held, inter alia, that the Florida Securities Act, chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1981), precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement concerning securities transactions. Relying on Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953), we further held that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1-14 (1983), did not compel a different result. We noted that Byrd v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 726 F. 2d 552 (9th Cir.1984), presenting the same issue, was before the United States Supreme Court and that should that Court recede from Wilko our decision would be different. The United States Supreme Court has now spoken. Although it did not recede from Wilko, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements on pendent state law claims. The effect of this holding is to preempt the state law on which we relied.
Respondent concedes that the effect of Dean Witter is to overturn the law on which we relied in our earlier ruling. However, respondent urges that we reexamine and reverse our earlier ruling that petitioner did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to invoke the right to compel arbitration when it appeared in federal court. (See note 1 to Oppenheimer.) We decline to do so. Although it is clear following the issuing of Dean Witter that a party in the position of petitioner could now invoke the right to compel arbitration of a pendent state law claim before a federal court, that was not the law at the time the parties actually appeared in federal court. We do not agree that we should hold petitioner to a knowledge of the future development of the law which we did not possess. We note also that the basis for review in Dean Witter was that there was a split in authority on this question in the federal circuits and that the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits formerly held that such claims were not arbitrable. Thus, our original rationale that it would have been pointless to invoke the arbitration agreement is still valid.
We quash the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. *
— U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1830, 85 L.Ed.2d 131 (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aztec Med. Servs., Inc. v. Robert Burger, M.D., 792 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…der Florida’s Franchise Fraud Act); Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. McFadden, 509 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(enforcing arbitration provision to statutory claims alleging violations of Florida’s wiretap statute); Oppenheimer & Co. v. Young, 475 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1985)(enforcing arbitration provision to claims under the Florida Securities Act). The trial court’s “extrapolation” of Management is erroneous. See also World Vacation Travel, S.A, de C.V. v. Brooker, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1477, — So. 2d -, 2001…
-
Finn v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 523 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…espondent’s request that the court reverse its earlier ruling that the petitioner did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to invoke the right to compel arbitration when it appeared in federal court. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 475 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1985). The court reasoned that there was a split of authority on the issue, and it would have been pointless to invoke the arbitration agreement. It could be argued that the same reasoning should be applied here; however, respondent agrees tha…
-
Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ation clause and, if they are, whether Cynthia’s claims fall within the ambit of the arbitration clause. Third Party Beneficiary Status Arbitration clauses in brokerage agreements may be valid and enforceable. See Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 475 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1985); Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Goldstein, 615 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Florida courts have generally held that arbitration clauses in contracts may be enforced by and are binding on third party beneficiaries. Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1953)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1985)
- Byrd v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 726 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1984)