Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,989 Jack R. Brown v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck

Eleventh Circuit

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,989 Jack R. Brown v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck

804 F.2d 129, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

Docket85-5724

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 804 F.2d 129 (Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,989 Jack R. Brown v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,989 Jack R. Brown v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck, 804 F.2d 129, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33570 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 F.2d 129, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fed-sec-l-rep-p-92989-jack-r-brown-v-dean-witter-reynolds-inc-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack