John Marshall, et al v. Wachovia Securities LLC

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Hispanic American Foundation, John Marshall Property Inc., John D. Marshall, Marshall Family Education Trust and Palm Coast Collectibles, Inc.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10497

Date Filed: 09/13/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10497
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-61864-JIC
JOHN D. MARSHALL,
JOHN MARSHALL PROPERTIES, INC.,
PALM COAST COLLECTIBLES, INC.,
MARSHALL FAMILY EDUCATION TRUST,
HISPANIC AMERICAN FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, formerly known as
WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 13, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10497

Date Filed: 09/13/2016

Page: 2 of 3

John Marshall Properties Inc., Palm Coast Collectibles, Inc., Hispanic
America Foundation, Inc. (“Corporations”), Marshall Family Education Trust
(“Trust”) and John D. Marshall, Sr. (Marshall) brought this action to vacate an
arbitration award in favor of Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, f/k/a Wachovia
Securities, LLC’s (“Wells Fargo”). Wells Fargo moved to strike the Corporations
and the Trust from the complaint because they are not represented by an attorney,
but proceed pro se instead. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint to the
extent that it is brought by Marshall because he lacks standing to sue since he was
not a party in the arbitration proceeding and thus is not a party to the award.
The District Court granted Wells Fargo’s motions to strike and to dismiss,
and the complaining parties appeal. We affirm.
As the Court properly held:
The Corporations and the Trust “can act only through agents, cannot
appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.” Palazzo v. Gulf
Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985). “It has been the law
for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear
in federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal.
Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202
(1993).
....
In addition, “a trust, like a corporation, must be represented by an
attorney.” Walker v. Schentrup, No. 1:13-CV-59-MW/GRJ, 2014 WL
1379638, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014).

2

Case: 16-10497

Date Filed: 09/13/2016

Page: 3 of 3

Doc. 27 at 4. The Court informed the Corporations and the Trust that they would
be dismissed unless they obtained counsel. They failed to obtain counsel;
therefore, they were properly dismissed from the case. Palazzo, 764 F.2d at 1388.
The Court properly dismissed Marshall for lack of standing.
The validity of an arbitration agreement is typically governed by the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (“FAA”). Under 9
U.S.C. § 10(a), “any party to [an] arbitration” may seek to vacate an
arbitration award. However, by the express terms of the statute, a
nonparty to the arbitration generally has no standing to challenge the
award. See, e.g., See More Light Invs. v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc.,
No. CV-08-580-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 5044557, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov.
24, 2008) (“As a non-party to the underlying arbitration, [plaintiff]
lacks standing to challenge it.”); Meshkin v. Vertrue Inc., No.
3:07CV109CFD, 2007 WL 2462172, at *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 28, 2007)
(“[A] non-party to the arbitration may not seek to overturn its
outcome.”); Katir v. Columbia Univ., 821 F. Supp. 900, 901
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“Because [the plaintiff] was not a party to the
arbitration, she lacks standing to petition to vacate the Award.”).
Id. at 5.
AFFIRMED.

3