Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


March 19, 2004.

SANDS BROTHERS & CO., LTD., Plaintiff, -v- CINDI ETTINGER, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DENISE COTE, District Judge


Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd. ("Sands"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, filed this action against Cindi Ettinger ("Ettinger"), a citizen of Pennsylvania, on October 6, 2003. Sands has moved for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it has no legal obligation to arbitrate any claims arising out of Ettinger's dealings with Bluestone Capital Corp. ("Bluestone") or its subsidiary, Shochet Securities, Inc. ("Shochet"),*fn1 who were Ettinger's brokers before Sands purchased Bluestone. For the Page 2 reasons described below, the motion is granted in part.


  The following facts are undisputed or as shown by Ettinger. In January 2000, Ettinger, an artist, opened an IRA account at GKN Securities Corp. ("GKN"). A broker at GKN, Robert Nosel ("Nosel"), was assigned to handle her account. Following several telephone conversations during which Ettinger told Nosel that she wanted to invest conservatively, Nosel sent her a letter dated January 24, 2000 outlining his investment strategy for her account. In the letter, Nosel stated that he had "taken into account your expressed conservatism when tailoring this portfolio." Included among Nosel's recommendations were speculative equity mutual funds. Neither Nosel nor his associate reviewed with Ettinger the risks associated with the proposed asset allocation plan. On January 28, Ettinger invested $256,519.00 in accordance with the recommended asset allocation plan devised by Nosel.

  Ettinger's account moved with Nosel to Shochet in December 2000, and to Bluestone in August 2001.*fn2 On November 7, 2001, Sands and Bluestone executed a Purchase Agreement whereby Sands acquired certain of Bluestone's accounts and assets in exchange for $1,075,000 in cash. One of the accounts purchased by Sands Page 3 was that of Ettinger.*fn3

  The Purchase Agreement provided, inter alia, that Sands would be permitted, but not required, to offer to hire "some or all" of Bluestone's personnel other than the co-chairmen; that Bluestone would transfer all rights in Shochet's trademarks and copyrights to Sands; and that, upon Sands' request, Bluestone would assign to Sands all of Bluestone's properties other than its headquarters in New York and specified other properties. Section 8 of the Purchase Agreement also released Sands from any of Bluestone's "liabilities, expenses, debts or obligations . . . contingent or absolute, known or unknown, including . . . any Litigation Liabilities." The clause defined "litigation liabilities" as any "debts, obligations or liabilities arising from or relating to pending, threatened and unasserted claims (including, without limitation, customer complaints), litigation, legal actions, counterclaims, suits or arbitration. . . ."

  In a March 28, 2002 letter from Sands to Ettinger for the purpose of updating Ettinger's file and account information, Sands introduced itself as having had "successfully acquired" Shochet. The letter asked Ettinger to update her file and account information by completing and returning the enclosed forms. Sands closed the letter by stating that it "look[ed] forward to continuing our long-standing relationship with you." Page 4 According to Ettinger, she filled out the forms, checking off boxes indicating "low-risk exposure," "preservation of capital" and "long term growth" as investment objectives, and returned them to Sands. A broker at Sands who had taken over Ettinger's account after Nosel's departure called her in April and introduced himself. Sands and Ettinger had no further contact.

  By October 2002, Ettinger's IRA account had declined 53%, from $292,148 to $138,287. Ettinger showed her account statements to one of her brokers at UBS PaineWebber ("PaineWebber"), another brokerage house with which she maintained investment accounts. The PaineWebber broker reviewed the Sands account statements and informed Ettinger that she was invested in speculative equity mutual funds. Ettinger immediately transferred the speculative mutual fund investments from Sands to PaineWebber. In December, she liquidated those investments, paying approximately $4,000 in sales charges.

  On July 24, 2003, Ettinger initiated an arbitration proceeding against Sands before the NASD. Ettinger charged Sands with fraud and "unsuitability with respect to the sale of speculative equity mutual funds" in her IRA account, as well as claims for breach of contract and lack of supervision. On October 6, Sands filed this action. In its first cause of action, Sands seeks a declaration that it is not a successor in interest to either Bluestone or Shochet. In its second cause of action, it requests a stay of the arbitration until there is a determination on its first cause of action. Page 5

  On October 6, Sands requested that the Court issue an ex parte stay of the arbitration. The Court refused to issue an ex parte order, and scheduled a conference for October 10. At the October 10 conference, Sands requested an opportunity to supplement its motion papers. This motion ensued. The parties do not contest the following facts: (1) Sands, as a member of NASD, is bound by the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure ("NASD Code"); (2) Ettinger was a Sands customer from November 1, 2001, the date of the Purchase Agreement with Bluestone, to the date in October 2002 on which she transferred her IRA account to PaineWebber; and (3) the dispute between Sands and Ettinger is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1-14 (1988).


  Sands contends that it has no legal obligation to arbitrate Ettinger's claim against it because Ettinger was not its "customer" for purposes of the NASD Code for any period before it acquired Bluestone on November 7, 2001, and because it is not a "successor in interest" to Bluestone. As a threshold matter, it should be noted the question of arbitrability is for the Court. "Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator." John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 254 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. Page 6 2003). "[O]ne party's membership in [the NASD], is insufficient, in and of itself, to evidence the parties' clear and unmistakable intent to submit the `arbitrability' question to the arbitrators." John Hancock, 254 F.3d at 57. Since Ettinger has pointed to no agreement between her and Sands that would place the issue of arbitrability before the arbitrator, this Court will decide the issue of arbitration.

  There is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983)). "[Q]uestions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26 (1991) (citation omitted). "[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24-25.

  Whether or not there is a motion to compel arbitration, any disputed issues of fact concerning the existence of a binding agreement to arbitrate are decided under the standard that applies to a motion for summary judgment. Bensadoun, 316 F.3d at 175. If material issues of fact are in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.