Heily

Heily v. Superior Court

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 563·202 Cal. App. 3d 255·248 Cal. Rptr. 673
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 1988A040522California2,943 words

Opinion

Opinion

Merrill, J.

Petitioner, the plaintiff in a wrongful discharge action, challenges a court order requiring her to arbitrate her dispute under procedures established by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE hereinafter). She contends both that her agreement to arbitrate was procured by fraud and that it should be set aside as unconscionable because of institutional bias in arbitration conducted under the auspices of the NYSE. We reject her contentions.

Petitioner has filed an action against real parties in interest, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (Merrill Lynch hereinafter) and two individual Merrill Lynch employees. The complaint alleges that after 18 years of service as a securities broker petitioner was discharged by real parties for failure to participate in a scheme to conceal from her clients the real reason they sustained losses in a Merrill Lynch sponsored options investment program. Merrill Lynch’s position is that petitioner was discharged because she divulged confidential information about the settlement of claims for investment losses.

Shortly after petitioner filed the complaint, real parties petitioned the court for an order compelling arbitration. Real parties cited…

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.