Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

and venue, citing the arbitration clause in the New Account Forms that plaintiffs signed.
Plaintiffs challenged the extent to which their claims fell within the scope of the arbitration
clause, contending that defendants could only produce copies of New Account Forms dated as
early as 2004 and 2006, and the investment relationship began with plaintiffs in 1999 and 2000,
respectively. The court, however, read the “arising out of or relating to” language in the
arbitration agreement to relate the 2004 and 2006 purchases back to the 1999 and 2000
purchases, and held that they were within the scope of the arbitration agreement as a result. The
court further reiterated that “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be
resolved in favor of arbitration.” Consequently, the court granted defendants’ motion and
directed the parties to arbitrate their claims.
Feller v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, 2011 WL 3331265 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2011).
Defendant initiated an arbitration proceeding with FINRA to recover the balance
remaining on a promissory note from plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to stay the arbitration, but the
arbitrators denied the motion. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit in state court, which defendant
removed to federal court and requested that the federal court compel arbitration and dismiss the
action. Plaintiff contended that her claims were not within the scope of the arbitration clause.
The court disagreed, holding that there were multiple potential agreements to arbitrate that had
been executed between plaintiff and defendant and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of
more than one of these agreements.
M & B Assocs., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2873 (Tex. App.
Amarillo Apr. 15, 2011).
In a suit involving a promissory note executed by plaintiffs, summary judgment was
granted in favor of defendant by the trial court. An appeal ensued, in which the only issue raised
was that the promissory note and guaranty contained arbitration clauses that should have
prevented summary judgment. The court held that this argument failed because, “to compel
arbitration, a party must apply to the court for it,” and the record contained neither a motion to
stay nor a motion to compel arbitration. The court further stated that a party who has a right to
arbitration was not required to invoke it, and the mere presence of an arbitration clause in an
agreement subject to litigation did not require the court to send the dispute to arbitration. This
was especially true when a particular clause required a party to demand arbitration, as was the
case in this instance. Finally, the court concluded that an affidavit by plaintiff’s attorney stating
that arbitration had been requested failed to disclose a particular dispute to be arbitrated and,
without such a specific disclosure, the court could not conclude whether or not such a dispute
was within the scope of the arbitration agreement. As such, summary judgment was affirmed.
N.1
N.1
336