New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Jane B. McInnes v. LPL Financial LLC, et al.

10/10/2013

 
Arguing That (1) The Default Rule Under the Federal Arbitration Act is that the Court Decides Whether a Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists and (2) The Act Pre-Empts Any Massachusetts Policy Barring the Enforcement of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements in Consumer Claims

The plaintiff, who died during this appeal, was a 78-year-old resident of Massachusetts who has sued her former investment/financial advisor and his firm, alleging, inter alia, fraud and deceit, intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, Mass. G.L. c. 93A.  The defendants moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration agreement in the contracts that the plaintiff entered into with LPL Financial. The defendants’ motion was denied (and denied again upon rehearing) on two grounds: first, that a question exists as to whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, second, that under a 1982 Supreme Judicial Court decision, Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc., 385 Mass. 813 (1982), an agreement to arbitrate a consumer claim under c. 93A is unenforceable on the grounds of public policy. 

The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to compel arbitration to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and then applied to the Supreme Judicial Court for direct appellate review.  Their application was granted and the Court subsequently issued an invitation for amicus briefs on the following two issues: (1) whether its 1982 Hannon ruling remains viable under subsequent holdings by the United States Supreme Court and (2) whether the existence of an arbitration clause is a question of fact to be determined in the first instance by a court.

NELF has long supported the freedom of contracting parties to enter into binding arbitration agreements. Consistent with that position, NELF filed an amicus brief supporting the defendants and answering the SJC’s amicus question as follows.  First, basing its argument on established principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), NELF argued that, except where the contracting parties have expressly agreed otherwise, it is the role of the court, not of an arbitrator, to determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. Second, NELF argued that, as set forth clearly by the United States Supreme Court in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) and in numerous subsequent decisions, where the FAA applies, as here, a court cannot refuse, on alleged state public policy grounds, to enforce an otherwise valid agreement to arbitrate a category of claims.

In its August 2013 decision, the Court agreed with NELF that Supreme Court law had overruled Hannon, and the Court recognized that, where the FAA applies, any state rule of law that prohibits a trial court from compelling arbitration of state claims is preempted. 


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001