White v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 2844 (Cal. App., 1Dist., 11/30/01)
A broad arbitration provision covering one account of a client may be construed to cover disputes arising in other accounts.
The Whites opened ten brokerage accounts with SSB and subsequently brought suit against SSB with regard to all ten accounts. SSB moved to compel arbitration. However, it failed to produce agreements for two of the accounts. The arbitration clauses in the eight account agreements that were produced were identical, all providing that all claims or controversies arising from any account maintained by me with SSB individually or jointly with others in any capacity (or) any transaction involving SSB shall be determined by arbitration .
The trial court granted SSBs motion to compel arbitration of claims arising from the eight accounts that contained arbitration clauses, but denied SSBs motion with respect to the two accounts for which no agreements were produced.
SSB appeals and the Appellate Court reverses. Noting Californias friendly attitude toward arbitration and the fact that the clauses in the eight agreements wee very broad, the Court has no difficulty concluding that the arbitration clauses in the eight agreements apply to all controversies between the parties. The fact that two agreements were not produced is of no consequence, because the customers had signed agreements that covered all of their accounts and so no new agreement was necessary to bind the customers to arbitration of claims arising from the two accounts in question.(SLC Ref. No. 2002-01-01)
Keywords – Arbitration, Arbitibility, compel, agreement
Copyright 2000-2002 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to email@example.com. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com
Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article.
- SEC Announces Enforcement Task Force Focused on Climate and ESG Issues
- Robinhood to allow ‘limited’ buys of GameStop, AMC, others on Friday
- 3M, DuPont And J&J: A Fresh Take On 3 Old-Time Names
- SEC Charges AT&T and Three Executives with Selectively Providing Information to Wall Street Analysts
- Dow Plunges Nearly 700 Points After Powell’s Speech Fails To Ease Investor Worries
- SEC Issues Over $5 Million to Joint Whistleblowers Located Abroad
- Gamestop Investigations?
- SEC Investor Advisory Committee to Meet Remotely On March 11
- SEC Charges Seven Individuals for $45 Million Fraudulent Scheme
- Can Robinhood Stop Trading in A Particular Stock?
Introductions and Primers
- What is Securities Arbitration?
- Overview of the Securities Arbitration Process
- The Firm’s Lawyer or Your Own Lawyer?
- Finders Explained – Be Careful
- Federal Securities Law, a Securities Lawyer Guide
- Introduction to State Securities (Blue Sky) Laws
- Expungement of Customer Complaints
- Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration
Mark J. Astarita, Esq. represents investors, financial professionals and firms in litigation, arbitration and regulatory matters across the country. He is a partner in the national securities law firm of Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC and can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone at 212-509-6544.
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and The Securities Law Blog .