Renteria

Renteria v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
113 F.3d 1104
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 20, 1997No. 95-16659California1,852 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Defendants Prudential Insurance Company, Gary Westerman, Robert Schultz, and Darryl Dalton (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Prudential”) appeal from the order of the district court denying their motion to compel arbitration. Our decision in this case follows from our decision in Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm the order of the district court.

BACKGROUND

On March 22, 1992, Prudential Insurance Company hired Rachel Renteria as a registered representative to solicit and sell securities and insurance products. Before joining Prudential, she completed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, also known as a Form U-4, which contained an arbitration clause, binding Renteria to arbitrate:

The organization indicated in Item 10 was the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and, at the time Renteria signed the Form U-4, the NASD Code provided that:

On October 1, 1993, the NASD Code was amended to include claims “arising out of the employment or termination of employment of such associated person(s) by and with such member,” as a category of claims subject to disposition by…

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.