Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,989jack R. Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Teneyck, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 804 F.2d 129
Nov. 13, 1986
Russell L. Forkey, Pamela M. Burdick, Cara L. Eisenberg, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Edward J. Marko, Marko & Stephany, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Jose A. Gonzalez, Jr., Judge.
Before FAY, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON* and NICHOLS**, Senior Circuit Judges.
Prior report: 601 F.Supp. 641 (1985).
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. Sec. 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.