Sacks

Sacks v. Dietrich

Good Law
663 F.3d 1065·2011 WL 5865893·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23382
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 23, 201110-16524California2,078 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas, J.

Richard Sacks appeals from the dismissal of his claims against two arbitrators who disqualified him from representing a client. The district court concluded that the claims were barred by arbitral immunity. We agree and affirm.

I

Plaintiff Richard Sacks entered into a written contract with Vincent Dang to represent him in a securities arbitration proceeding to be administered by the Fi nancial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

Dang signed and submitted a “Uniform Submission Agreement,” formally submitting the dispute to FINRA. The Agreement stated, in relevant part:

Sacks’s company, Investors Recovery Service, also submitted a Statement of Claim, paid filing fees, and requested a hearing on behalf of Dang. FINRA appointed defendants Dean Dietrich and Teri Coster Boesch as arbitrators to hear and decide Dang’s claims.

Sacks first appeared before the arbitration panel during two telephone hearings. The respondents in the arbitration moved to have Sáeks disqualified on the grounds that he was ineligible under FINRA Rule 13208. FINRA Rule 13208 provided that “[pjarties may be represented in an arbitration by a person who is not an attorney, unless ... the person…

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.