Thomas v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

683 So. 2d 734, 1996 WL 545893
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 25, 1996
Docket95-1405, 95-1279
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 683 So. 2d 734 (Thomas v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 683 So. 2d 734, 1996 WL 545893 (La. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

683 So.2d 734 (1996)

Robert C. THOMAS, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of all Other Similarly Situated Schwab Customers, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Robert C. THOMAS, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of all Other Similarly Situated Schwab Customers, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 95-1405, 95-1279.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

September 25, 1996.
Writ Denied January 24, 1997.

*736 Jeffrey Howerton Thomas, Esq., Natchitoches, Gilbert V. Andry III, New Orleans, Donald G. Kelly, Natchitoches, Walter J. Leger Jr., Jonathan Beauregard Andry, New Orleans, Lionel H. Sutton III, New Iberia, Tyron David Picard, Lafayette, Allan Kanner, Conlee Schell Whiteley, New Orleans, Michael B. Hyman, Christopher J. Stuart, Chicago, IL, Richard Meyer, Steven B. Simon, Woodland Hills, CA, Daniel Harris, Charles Watkins, Keith M. Jensen, Fort Worth, TX, for Robert C. Thomas et al.

Ewell Elton Eagan Jr., New Orleans, Henry Cole Gahagan Jr., Natchitoches, Lewis O. Sams, Coushatta, Donna Phillips Currault, New Orleans, for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

Before THIBODEAUX, SAUNDERS and AMY, JJ.

THIBODEAUX, Judge.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a stock brokerage firm, appeals the trial court's judgment certifying a nationwide class of Schwab customers and the denial of its exception of venue. Schwab's appeal was consolidated with its writ application regarding the trial court's denial of its exceptions of lis pendens, improper cumulation of actions, motion to stay, and motion to transfer.

Stock wholesalers make payments to Charles Schwab & Co. in exchange for the customer orders Schwab directs to them. Schwab keeps the payments. The plaintiffs class representatives, Robert C. Thomas and Robert M. Kahn, claim that Schwab breached its fiduciary duty to them and to other class members by not disclosing these payments to its customers.

We affirm for the following reasons.

I.

ISSUES

The issues presented on appeal are whether the trial court erred in: (1) its denial of Schwab's exceptions of lis pendens, improper venue, and improper cumulation of actions; (2) its denial of Schwab's motion to transfer and motion to stay; and, (3) its ruling on class certification.

II.

FACTS

Robert C. Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a petition for damages against Charles Schwab & Co., a California corporation. The suit was filed in the Tenth Judicial District Court in and for the parish of Natchitoches, Louisiana. Dr. Robert M. Kahn, an alleged California domiciliary, was later added as a plaintiff to these proceedings through an amending and supplemental petition.

Schwab acts as an agent for its customers when it negotiates stock trades with stock wholesalers who buy stock from or sell stock to Schwab's customers. Schwab is paid a commission by its customers as compensation for performing its trades. Schwab also receives and keeps "payments for order flow" from the stock wholesalers with whom Schwab negotiated the customers' orders.

Schwab's customers receive a customer agreement which establishes the contractual relationship between Schwab and its customers. It provides that the relationship between Schwab and its customers is governed by California law.

Schwab argues that this case is one of nine duplicative class actions filed in several states. Schwab also alleges that this suit is the same as the one recently affirmed as a statewide class action by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 95-2010 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/29/96); 670 So.2d 548.

*737 III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

A. Lis Pendens

Appellant Schwab alleges that its exception of lis pendens should be granted because Dumont currently exists in Orleans Parish. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 531 states that when two or more suits in a Louisiana court concern the same transaction or occurrence between the same parties in the same capacities, the defendant may have all subsequent cases dismissed. Although the fourth circuit's decision is not in the record, this court may take judicial notice of the decision under La.Code Evid. art. 202(B)(e) which allows the court to take note of decisions which have the effect of law. Dumont affirmed the Orleans Parish trial court's certification of a class consisting of all Louisiana customers of Schwab.

Lis pendens does not apply in this case. In Spitzfaden v. Dow Corning Corp., 619 So.2d 795 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1236 (La.1993), the court certified a class even though a pending lawsuit in federal court existed involving the same occurrence and some of the same plaintiffs. Although some of the plaintiffs in this case may also be class members in Dumont, lis pendens does not prevent the formation of a nationwide class. In Dumont, class members consist of Schwab's customers who live within the state of Louisiana, while in this case the parties who seek class certification consist of those who were affected by Schwab's actions nationwide. Certainly, the parties involved in this case overlap with those in Dumont; however, the plaintiffs of each case are different because they appear in different capacities in each case.

B. Venue

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 76.1 provides that venue is proper in the parish in which a contract is executed. Article 76.1 should be construed as an extension of La.Code Civ.P. art. 42 instead of an exception to Article 42. Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., 656 So.2d 988, 989 (La.1995). In Jordan, the court found that a contract may be executed in more than one parish, even if it will not be valid and enforceable until it is signed by all parties. Id. at 989. Further, La.Code Civ.P. art. 76.1 applies to any of the parishes where the contract was executed. Id.

In this case, the contract was signed by the appellee class representative in Natchitoches Parish and then sent to California for the appellant's signature. Once the appellee signed the contract, the contract was executed. Venue is proper in Natchitoches Parish. It is unnecessary to wait until the contract became valid and enforceable.

C. Improper Cumulation of Action

Two or more parties may be joined in the same suit when they share a community of interest, their suits are mutually consistent, and their suits are brought in the court of proper jurisdiction and venue. La.Code Civ.P. art. 463. Schwab concedes that the class representatives share a community of interest and that their actions are mutually consistent. However, Schwab contends that Natchitoches Parish is not the proper venue as to Dr. Kahn. Therefore, the action between Dr. Kahn and Mr. Thomas was improperly cumulated.

Parties who are attempting to certify a class do not first cumulate their actions. The prerequisites to a class action are that the persons of the class are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all, a member of the class provides adequate representation of the absent members, and the character of the right sought to be enforced by the class members is common among them all. La. Code Civ.P. art. 591. The prerequisites for each action are similar. However, the difference between La.Code Civ.P. art. 591 and art. 463 is that the former is specifically for class actions and the latter is for the cumulation of individual actions.

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

Related

Perez v. Evenstar, Inc.
108 So. 3d 898 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
Edmonds v. City of Shreveport
910 So. 2d 1005 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005)
Garrison v. St. Charles General Hospital
857 So. 2d 1092 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Thomas v. Mobil Oil Corp.
843 So. 2d 504 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
West v. G & H SEED CO.
832 So. 2d 274 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Mathews v. Hixson Bros., Inc.
831 So. 2d 995 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Martello v. City of Ferriday
813 So. 2d 467 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
UNITED GENERAL TITLE INS. v. Casey Title, Ltd.
800 So. 2d 1061 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Bartlett v. BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
726 So. 2d 414 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Banks v. New York Life Ins. Co.
722 So. 2d 990 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)
Vardaman v. Airosol Co., Inc.
711 So. 2d 376 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 So. 2d 734, 1996 WL 545893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-charles-schwab-co-inc-lactapp-1996.