Milliner

Milliner v. Mutual Securities, Inc.

Good Law
207 F. Supp. 3d 1060·2016 WL 4990516·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128289
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2016Case No. 15-cv-03354-TEHCalifornia5,634 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henderson, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On July 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: MSI Duty to Supervise Bock and Evans (“Pls.’ Mot.”) (ECF No. 41). After carefully considering the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

This class action is related to another class action separately filed in this Court: Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd., No. 15-cv-1763 TEH (the “Bock Evans Class Action”). 1 The Bock Evans Class Action was brought by the same Plaintiffs as the present class action, to challenge the “ ‘one size fits all’ investment approach implemented by their investment advisor, Defendant Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. (‘BEFC’).” Compl. ¶ 1 (EFC *1063 No. 1). Plaintiffs brought the present class action against Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. (“MSI”) because of MSI’s relationship with BEFC. Specifically, BEFC required that clients hire MSI as their broker-dealer. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs allege one reason BEFC required clients to use MSI is because Thomas Bock and Mary Evans,…

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.