JACK R. BROWN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., ROBERT STEINLAUF AND RICHARD TEN EYCK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial court erred in compelling arbitration of claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that issues regarding the arbitration agreement's validity should be considered on remand.
Plaintiff brought a securities fraud action alleging violations of state and federal law. The trial court compelled arbitration of claims brought unde…
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 Waiver Of Judicial Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This securities fraud action alleges violations of both state and federal law including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and S.E.C. Rule 10(b)(5). The primary issue on appeal involves the order of the trial court compelling arbitration of those claims brought under the 1934 Act.
This issue is controlled by this court’s recent en banc opinion in Wolfe v. E.F. Hutton, 800 F. 2d 1032 (11th Cir.1986). The order of the trial court dealing with arbitration of these claims is reversed.
Appellant also raises issues concerning the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. The record is simply not clear as to how or when these matters were presented to the trial court nor how they were disposed of in the orders entered. Since arbitration was stayed, it may be that they were merely postponed. In any event we suggest the issues of adhesion, unconscionability, waiver of judicial remedies without notice, and the lack of mutuality of obligation can be visited upon remand. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); Miller v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 791 F. 2d 850 (11th Cir.1986).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jacobs Wind Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 626 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1993)…, Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969) (state court must consider the validity of a patent in order to determine whether a breach of an agreement occurred); Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F. 2d 129 (Fed.Cir.1986) (complaint seeking declaratory judgment that a licensing agreement for use of a patent is enforceable was properly filed in state court); cf. Christianson (complaint alleging anti-trust violations and intentional interference with bus…1 / 2
-
Asset Allocation & Mgmt. Co. v. W. Emp'rs Ins. Co., 892 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1990)…Pavkovic, supra, 753 F. 2d at 1402; Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries, 728 F. 2d 820, 826-27 (7th Cir.1984); Maybelline Co. v. Noxell Corp., 813 F. 2d 901, 903 n. 1 (8th Cir.1987); Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F. 2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986). There is tension between these two lines of cases, including the cases within this circuit: Shaffer and Elliott imply that there is no power to review a ruling that is not dispositive of the injunction’s validity, Parks and Rudo…
-
United States v. Spears, 859 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1988)…d. at 255. See also Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 571 (2d Cir.1986); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of America, 683 F. 2d 827, 831 (4th Cir.1982); Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F. 2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986). This exception, it must be emphasized, is an exercise of discretion by a Court of Appeals and should be used sparingly. Casual application might lead to abuse. For example, as a device to obtain review of a matter not otherwise…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin MFG. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1967)
- Miller v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 791 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Wolfe v. E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1986)