HUMBERTO SUAREZ-VALDEZ, ACERUS SUAREZ, S.A., A PANAMANIAN CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
SHEARSON LEHMAN/AMERICAN EXPRESS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ALEJANDRO LACAYO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 an agreement to arbitrate requires proceedings to occur under arbitration rules, not court rules, and thus discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not have been ordered.
Defendants moved to stay litigation pending arbitration as required by their agreements. The district court granted a stay of trial but not proceeding…
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 Federal Arbitration Act (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
HILL, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) and Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987), the defendants moved the district court to stay this action pending the arbitration required by the parties’ agreements. While the district court did stay the trial pending arbitration, it did not stay proceedings. The district judge ordered that discovery would proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants appealed the decision to allow discovery proceedings to continue.
The issue defendants present is appealable at this juncture. Properly char acterized, the appeal stems from a denial of a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, and not from an order compelling discovery. A denial of a stay of judicial proceedings pending arbitration is immediately appealable. Dimenstien v. Whiteman, 759 F. 2d 1514, 1515 (11th Cir.1985).
The district court erred in refusing to stay discovery. An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to proceed under arbitration and not under court rules.1
The stay entered for arbitration is AFFIRMED. The provision requiring that the parties engage in — and submit to — discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is REVERSED and shall be VACATED.
. We need not decide whether a district court might order discovery to aid in arbitration where the court found some ‘‘special need” for the discovery. See Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Docutel Corporation., 371 F.Supp. 240 (E.D.N.Y.1973); Ferro Union Corporation v. SS Ionic Coast, 43 F.R.D. 11 (S.D.Tex.1967). Conceivably such a rule risks a plunge into judicial control over arbitration. The issue is irrelevant in this case, however, because the plaintiffs never contended to the district court that they had such an unusual circumstance, and the district court made no such finding. To the extent that plaintiffs argued that federal interests in federal securities laws constituted some sort of special need, Rl-50-6, their rationale was undermined by Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suarez-Valdez v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc., 858 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1988)…BY THE COURT: The mandate in this case has been withheld. The court on its own motion reconsiders the opinion and judgment dated [*649] 5/23/88, found at 845 F. 2d 950. The same is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor. Pursuant to Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) and Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d…
-
Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 1241 (S.D. Fla. 1988)…d the production of documents constitutes impermissible pre-hearing discovery. Plaintiffs are correct that all discovery between parties must be stayed by the court pending arbitration. See Suarez-Valdez v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 950, 951 (11th Cir. May 23, 1988). “An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to proceed under arbitration and not under court rules.” Id. (footnote omitted). However, the court can find no support for plaintiffs’ contention that the court may…
Authorities Cited
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1985)
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMAHON, 482 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1987)
- Dimenstien v. Whiteman, 759 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1985)