Provencio

Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc.

Caution
125 Cal. App. 4th 1028·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 55·2005 Daily Journal DAR 572·23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 457
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 2005B171724California1,770 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

Defendant WMA Securities, Inc., appeals from the order denying its petition to compel arbitration of an action for fraud, breach of contract, and other related claims brought by plaintiffs Linda Provencio and Lori Berke. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Linda Provencio and Lori Berke transferred their individual retirement accounts to defendant WMA Securities, Inc. (WMA), then relied on WMA for investment advice. Provencio and Berke sued WMA for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, along with other related causes of action, alleging that they were the victims of bad advice by WMA. In response to the complaint, WMA brought a petition to compel arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) According to WMA, the investment services contracts that respondents signed with it required their dispute to be arbitrated by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), pursuant to the NASD’s rules and procedures. Respondents opposed the petition on several grounds, including one we find convincing—that WMA was out of business and no longer a member of NASD, thereby precluding arbitration by NASD without…

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.