RAYMOND, JAMES & ASSOCIATES INC. AND WILLIAM THATCHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUDY JEAN, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a securities dispute. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that arbitration agreements are enforceable in state securities law disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Yes, the Federal Arbitration Act compels the enforcement of arbitration agreements in securities disputes based on state laws. No, the appellants did not waive their right to compel arbitration through their communications or procedural filings.
[1] The Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements in securities disputes based on state laws.
[2] A notice stating that an arbitration provision does not apply to federal securities law disputes does not constitute a waiver of arbitration for disputes arising under st…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In an opinion issued subsequent to the decision below, the Florida supreme court has now held that the Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements in securities disputes based on state laws.”
Establishes the controlling legal precedent for the enforceability of arbitration agreements in state securities law disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants (appellants) moved to compel arbitration based on a customer agreement with the plaintiffs (appellees). The trial court denied this mot…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Securities And Investor Protection Act cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The defendants below appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v). In denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration of this dispute as provided for in the customer’s agreement between appellant and appellee, the trial court apparently relied on Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1984) which had held that the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 1, et seq., did not apply to actions brought under the Florida Securities Act, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1981). Oppenheimer was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 1830, 85 L.Ed.2d 131 (1985). In an opinion issued subsequent to the decision below, the Florida supreme court has now held that the Federal Arbitration Act compels enforcement of arbitration agreements in securities disputes based on state laws. Oppenheimer and Co., Inc. v. Young, 475 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1985).
We find nothing in the record to support appellees’ argument that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration. The notice which appellants sent appellees, to the effect that the arbitration provision of the customer’s agreement did not require arbitration of any dispute arising under the Federal Securities Laws,1 did not act as a waiver here, because this dispute arises out of alleged violations of state law. Neither do we find a waiver by the fact that appellants, in conjunction with their motion to compel arbitration, filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs’ complaint until the court ruled on its motion to compel arbitration. This shows reliance on the motion to compel arbitration, not an abandonment of it. Cf. R.W. Roberts Construction Co., Inc. v. Masters & Co., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. . See Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1953)
- Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1984)
- Fair v. State, 403 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 475 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1985)