Amonte et al v. Romero et al

Filing 14

ORDER Compelling Arbitration. ORDERED that Defendant Michael Romeros Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or Alternatively, to Stay and Compel Arbitration 9 is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED to the extent it requests that the Cour t dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1). The motion is also DENIED to the extent that it requests a stay of the proceedings. In lieu of a stay, the case will be administratively closed pursuant. The parties are ordered to submit joint status reports to the Court every six months. Based upon those status reports, the Court will determine the appropriate course of action by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/03/11.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02081-WYD-KLM
ALLEN AMONTE;
BETTY AMONTE; and
FRANK AMONTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL ROMERO;
LARRY BEHRENDS;
UNITED SECURITIES ALLIANCE, INC.; and
CAPWEST SECURITIES, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

THIS MATTER comes before me on Defendant Michael Romero’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or Alternatively, to Stay and Compel
Arbitration. (ECF No. 9.) On September 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a response
consenting to an order compelling arbitration of their claims. Having carefully
considered the parties’ pleadings, I grant in part and deny in part Defendant Romero’s
pending motion.
By way of background, Plaintiffs Allen Amonte, Frank Amonte and Betty Amonte
(“Plaintiffs” or “the Amontes”) hold several accounts at the broker-dealer firms of United
Securities Alliance and CapWest Securities. Allen Amonte executed a Customer
Account Form at United Securities Alliance on August 7, 2003. Additionally, Allen

Amonte executed a Confidential Account Application with CapWest on November 1,
2005. Frank and Betty Amonte executed similar customer account agreements at both
United Securities Alliance and CapWest. Pursuant to these agreements, the parties
agreed to arbitrate any disputes with FINRA, the industry expert in resolving disputes
between brokerage firms and their customers
In his pending motion to compel, Defendant Romero requests that I either
dismiss this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) or compel arbitration and stay
this matter pursuant to the applicable arbitration clause and the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”). In response, Plaintiffs agree that an order compelling arbitration of their claims
is appropriate. (ECF No. 13.)
Agreements to arbitrate are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. A
motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement is governed by 9 U.S.C.
§ 4 which reads as follows:
The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied
that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure
to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. . . . If the
making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or
refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall
proceed summarily to the trial thereof.
Based on the pleadings submitted by the parties, I find that it is undisputed that both an
arbitration agreement exists and that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration.
Accordingly, it is

-2-

ORDERED that Defendant Michael Romero’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or Alternatively, to Stay and Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 9) is
GRANTED to the extent that it requests an order compelling the parties to proceed with
arbitration in accordance with the applicable arbitration clauses. The motion is DENIED
to the extent it requests that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
12(b)(1). The motion is also DENIED to the extent that it requests a stay of the
proceedings. In lieu of a stay, the case will be administratively closed pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 with leave to be reopened for good cause shown. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction until arbitration has
been completed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that since the length of the arbitration process is
uncertain, I find that this case should be administratively closed pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 with leave to be reopened for good cause shown. In furtherance
of the administrative closure, the parties are ordered to submit joint status reports to the
Court every six months. Based upon those status reports, the Court will determine the
appropriate course of action.
Dated: October 3, 2011
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge

-3-