Thiele

Thiele v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

Good Law
59 F. Supp. 2d 1067·1999 WL 596353·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11841
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 23, 199997CV1887-B (AJB)California2,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brewster, J.

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; and (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY

I. Introduction

On January 20, 1999, Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“ML”), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s December 22, 1998 Order denying, in part, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. On January 29, 1999, Plaintiff William L. Thiele (“THIELE”) filed a Motion to Lift the Stay imposed by the December 22, 1998 Order which also granted, in part, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, and GRANTS Thiele’s Motion to Lift the Stay of the NYSE Arbitration.

II. Discussion

The facts of this case are set forth in the Court’s previous Order and need only be briefly reiterated here. Thiele worked as a financial consultant for ML from 1972 until 1996. At the start of his employment at ML, Thiele executed a New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) Form RE-1, containing a compulsory arbitration clause, to register him as a securities representative with the NYSE. Moreover, during his employment at ML, on at least July 22, 1981, July 11, 1989, October 26, 1994, and July 25, 1995, Plaintiff…

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.