Reddam

Reddam v. KPMG LLP

Caution
457 F.3d 1054·2006 WL 2291299·98 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5973·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20499
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 200605-56664, 05-56671California3,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fernandez, J.

KPMG LLP and Sidley Austin LLP (Sidley) appeal the district court’s remand of this case, which had been removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange (Orange County Superior Court) pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205 (removal of actions relating to arbitration agreements under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). They argue that the district court erred when it remanded after it determined that an arbitration agreement had become unenforceable because the arbitrator (the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.) had declined jurisdiction over the parties.

We have jurisdiction and we reverse.

BACKGROUND

J. Paul Reddam, J. Paul Reddam Trust, Clarence Ventures, LLC, and Zed Corporation (collectively Reddam) assert that KPMG, Presidio Advisors LLC, Sid-ley and Deutsche Bank AG formed a joint venture in which they agreed to develop, implement and market certain complex programs (“the programs”), which were designed to reduce the taxes of those who adopted the programs. The detailed nature of the programs is not relevant to this action. Suffice it to say that, as relevant here, Reddam was to purchase…

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.