950 F. Supp. 2d 633
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- SCBI sought a pre-motion conference to enforce the May 18, 2012 order compelling Caso to arbitrate individually.
- May 18, 2012 order granted arbitration of Caso's claims under the NISA and stayed the case.
- Caso served notice on May 7, 2013 of his intent to initiate class action arbitration against SCBI.
- The May 18 Order rested on the NISA (an individual agreement) and did not contemplate class arbitration; the NISA lacks explicit class-arbitration language.
- The Court reaffirmed that the NISA governs arbitration of Caso's individual claims and precludes class arbitration against SCBI.
- The June 12, 2013 decision denied Caso's motion for reconsideration of the order enforcing individual arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class arbitration is authorized by the contracts | Caso argues the Brokerage Agreement permits class action. | SCBI argues no contract provision contemplates class arbitration. | Class arbitration not authorized; no explicit consent in either contract. |
| Whether the May 18 Order properly compelled individual arbitration | Caso asserts procedural/arbitrability gaps. | SCBI contends order correctly enforced under contract. | Yes, individual arbitration enforced; class arbitration precluded. |
| Whether reconsideration of the June 12 Order was warranted | Caso repeats prior arguments; seeks different outcome. | SCBI opposes reconsideration; arguments previously considered. | Reconsideration denied; no intervening binding law or evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (arbitration is a matter of consent; cannot compel class arbitration without contract provision)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2010) (an agreement to arbitrate does not imply class-arbitration unless contract contemplates it)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2002) (gateway question of arbitrability decided by court unless parties agreed otherwise)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (where parties did not submit arbitrability to arbitration, courts decide)
- Smiga v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 766 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1985) (court retains jurisdiction to enforce and determine contours of arbitration)