Harry R. Conover v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., and Brenton Ogden, and Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Bad Law
794 F.2d 520·55 U.S.L.W. 2076·1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27334
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 17, 198685-6082California3,834 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schroeder, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action by a customer against his securities broker for damages resulting from alleged violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rules. In this appeal by the broker, the issue is whether the claim should be submitted to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the parties’ customer agreement. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 , 74 S.Ct. 182 , 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953), and subsequent decisions of this circuit, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

The genesis of this appeal is Justice White’s special concurring opinion in Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 , 105 S.Ct. 1238 , 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). Justice White there questioned whether Wilko’s holding, i.e. the non-arbitrability of claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, applies to claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is the first of a number of similar cases, involving arbitrability of customer claims against a broker under section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5, to reach this court since the…

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.