Michael Alakozai v. Chase Investment Services

557 F. App'x 658

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2014
• Docket: 12-55553
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chase Investment Services Corporation appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ class action claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16 and affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Chase’s motion to compel arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act ensures that private arbitration agreements “are enforced according to their terms.” Momot v. Mas-tro, 652 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 682, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010)). We apply contractual interpretation rules, and the intention of the parties controls. Id. The plain language of the arbitration agreement incorporates Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rules and requires arbitration of individual claims, but excludes class claims from arbitration. The agreement contains no waiver of plaintiffs’ rights to bring class action claims against Chase. It merely provides that class claims cannot be arbitrated by FIN-RA. Because the district court has not yet addressed class certification in this case, FINRA Rule 13204(d) precludes enforcement of the arbitration agreement at this time.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.