McConnell

McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Good Law
176 Cal. App. 3d 480·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2950·222 Cal. Rptr. 228
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1985Docket Nos. B009338, B010023California3,481 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Appellant and defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (Merrill Lynch) appeals from an order made after judgment (Order) in favor of plaintiffs and respondents John A. McConnell, Marguerite McConnell and Caroline W. Barrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the Class). Merrill Lynch alternatively petitions this court for a writ of mandate modifying the Order from which it appealed. The petition for writ of mandate was deferred to be considered with the appeal. The Class has requested that sanctions be imposed on Merrill Lynch for prosecuting a frivolous appeal.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Order, deny the petition for a writ of mandate, and impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Statement of Facts

This case is a class action originally filed in 1973 alleging that Merrill Lynch violated the California Usury Law by charging interest on its margin accounts in excess of the 10 percent limit then permitted. This cause of action was subsequently dismissed. The complaint was amended in 1975 to allege that Merrill Lynch charged compound interest on its margin accounts in violation of section 2 of the California Usury…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.