Ware

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

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 791·1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1114·24 Cal. App. 3d 35·1972 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,136
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1972Civ. 28875California3,174 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bray, J.

Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. appeals, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a), from an order denying petition to: order arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Was there an arbitration agreement?

2. Is the forfeiture provision of the arbitration agreement legal?

3. Does Labor Code section 229 prohibit arbitration in this dispute?

Record

Plaintiff, a former employee of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (hereinafter Merrill Lynch), on behalf of himself and other former employees similarly situated, filed this action for declaratory relief and damages. The gravamen of the complaint involves a provision, Article 11.1, in the Merrill Lynch Profit Sharing Plan for Employees. The complaint seeks (1) a declaration that Article 11.1 is invalid under applicable law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600), and (2) that defendant is obligated to pay to plaintiff the amount of the profit sharing rights which Merrill Lynch claims were forfeited and to which plaintiff claims to be entitled. Merrill Lynch answered and filed a petition for order of arbitration. Plaintiff then filed a motion for order determining that the action is…

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.