Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1151

DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, SCBI's motion to compel individual arbitration of Caso's claims and preclude class arbitration is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 6/12/2013) (js)

Download PDF
----",.. :-- ,,;: '~f)L , \IY, - -- ,-_._-------,. I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------- -X PASHA S. ANWAR, et al., 09 Civ. 0118 (VM) Plaintiffs, 10 Civ. 9196 (Caso) against- DECISION AND ORDER FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED, et al., Defendants. ------------------------- X VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. By letter Chartered dated Bank May 24, International 2013, Defendants (Americas) Standard (\\SCBI") Ltd. sought a pre-motion conference to enforce this Court's May 18, 2012 Ricardo order (the Rodriguez \\May 18 Order") Caso ("Caso") to compelling Plaintiff arbitrate against SCBI on an individual basis. his (Dkt. No. responded by letter dated May 30, 2013 SCBI replied by letter dated June 5, (Dkt. claims 70.) No. Caso 71) and 2013 (Dkt. No. Caso submitted a further reply date June 7, 2013 (Dkt. No. 76) which the SCBI's May 24, Court also considered. The Court 75). deems 2013 letter a motion to enforce the May 18 Order and compel individual arbitration. For the reasons stated below, SCBI's motion to enforce the May 18 Order and compel individual arbitration of Caso's claims is GRANTED. 1 I. BACKGROUND On May 18, 2012, the Court granted SCBI' s motion to compel arbitration of the claims brought by Caso in Caso v. tandard Chartered Bank International 10 Civ. 9196, number of other lawsuits found that into the No. above-captioned multi(Dkt. No. (Dkt. No. 880, ex. B arbitration controvers for The 50.) the Nondiscretionary Investment Services Agreement (the "NISA") agreement. Ltd., a putative class action consolidated with a district litigation, No. 09 Civ. 0118. Court Americas "all The Court further tI found ~ 9(a)) compels arising out that of had SCBI that not waived its right to compel arbitration and that there was insufficient prejudice to Caso to federal policy favoring arbitration. overcome the strong Accordingly, the Court granted SCBI's motion to compel arbitration of Caso's claims and stayed Caso's case pending completion of arbitration. On May 7, 2013, intent to init c Caso served SCBI with notice of his s action arbitration against SCBI. II. DISCUSSION It is a fundamental legal precept that arbitration \\is a matter of consent, not coercion." Volt v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468[ 479 (1989) . Thus, a party "may not -2­ be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless basis for concluding Stolt-Nielsen S.A. 1758, 1775 (2010) v. that the there party AnimalFeeds authorize differences agreed (emphasis in original). class between action so." 130 S. Ct. "an implicit agreement bilateral action arbitration are too great do An agreement to arbitration" simple contractual to Int'l Corp., arbitrate alone does not constitute to is a for because and "[t]he complex such a class presumption." Id. at 1763. Therefore, an agreement to arbitrate "any and all disputes, controversies, or claims agreement does not in and of sing out of" that itself arbitration if there is "no provision contemplates class arbitration." Mkts., LLC, No. 11 civ. 864, authorize the contract which Sanders v. 2011 class WL Forex Capital 5980202, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011). To begin with, the Court notes jurisdiction to enforce and determine May 18 Order compelling arbitration. 766 (" [A] court to which orders 698, arbitration it retains the contours of See Smiga v. 705 (2d retains Cir. the Dean 1985) jurisdiction rmine any subsequent application involving the same agreement to arbitrate.") ----'--=----- , 514 U.S. 938, parties F.2d that "did not i 947 First Options (1995) to clearly 3­ of Chicago, Inc. (holding that where the submit the question arbitrability to arbitration . [] dispute was subject . the arbitrability of the to independent review by the courts") . In the May 18 Order, the Court mandated arbitration of the claims between contractual Bank Caso agreement individual SCBI between based Caso and ( "American International predecessor. and on the NISA, American s SCBI's "'"v1'"\""'oss" ) , an The May 18 Order was based on the NISA agreement arbitration. and did not a contemplate class Furthermore, the language of the NISA clearly does not contain any provision or language that anticipates class arbitration. As "all controversies" the Court reads in the NISA, the the reference to language encompassed any dispute between Caso individually and American Express, not between Caso and all others he decides similarly situated. to regard as Had American Express contemplated that it was agreeing to arbitrate under its contract with Caso not only its controvers all other plaintiffs bandwagon of explicit provision obligation. Order his with Caso, but also with any and Caso dispute, for Therefore, compelling chose it arbitration bring on certainly would much more such the to a Court of -4­ reaffirms Caso s I board the have made expansive its individual May 18 claims and hereby precludes Caso from arbitrating his claims against SCBI arising out of the NISA on a class basis. Accordingly, SCBI's motion to compel individual arbitration of Caso's claims and preclude class arbitration is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York 12 June 2013 / /< //=-~~:::~~~~::7 .:;;>•. '- :;:'::>-~:- . . . ~ VICTOR MARRERO U.S.D.J. -5­

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?