Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg
Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 93-4323 (AJL). |
Citation | 837 F. Supp. 85 |
Parties | GRUNTAL & CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. Ronald STEINBERG and Carolyn Steinberg, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Robert J. Kipnees, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin & Davis, Woodbridge, NJ, for plaintiff.
Ronald and Carolyn Steinberg, pro se.
This is an action by plaintiffGruntal & Co., Inc.("Gruntal") against defendantsRonald Steinberg and Carolyn Steinberg(the "Steinbergs"), for declaratory judgment as to Gruntal's obligation to arbitrate.Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act,9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and 28U.S.C. §§ 1331and1332.
Currently before the court is the issue, raised by Order to Show Cause entered 29 September 1993(the "Order to Show Cause"), of whether the court should grant Gruntal a preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration in this matter pending disposition of the case on the merits.1SeeOrder to Show Causeat 2.For the reasons set forth below, Gruntal's application for a preliminary injunction against arbitration is granted.
Gruntal is, and has at all relevant times been, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York County, New York.Complaint, filed 29 September 1993("Complaint"), ¶ 1.Gruntal is a securities broker-dealer and a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers("NASD").RappaportCert., ¶ 2.Gruntal maintains a branch office in Fort Lee, New Jersey.Complaint, ¶ 2.
The Steinbergs are individuals residing in Baltimore County, Maryland.It is alleged the Steinbergs are "citizens of the State of Maryland."Id.,¶ 3.
From November 1982 through March 1988, the Steinbergs held a trading account with the securities brokerage firm of Philips, Appel & Walden, Inc.("Philips") through Philips' office located in Fort Lee, New Jersey (the "Fort Lee Office").RappaportCert., ¶ 2.During that period, Philips had numerous other branch offices.2Id.,¶ 3.
On or about 18 April 1988, Gruntal entered into an agreement (the "Asset Purchase Agreement") with Philips by which Gruntal "agreed to purchase certain specified assets of Philips' Fort Lee Office."Id.; Complaint, Ex. A. The Asset Purchase Agreement transfers to Gruntal "all right, title and interest of Philips in and to the furniture, leasehold improvements, equipment, machinery, supplies and other assets owned by Philips which are presently located or used at the Fort Lee Office."Complaint, Ex. A, ¶ 1(a).
The Asset Purchase Agreement also transfers to Gruntal the "goodwill, other intangible assets and written information and operating data possessed by Philips relating to the retail brokerage business presently conducted by Philips at the Fort Lee Office. ..."Id.,¶ 1(b).Gruntal, however, acquires "no rights or interest in or to the name `Philips, Appel & Walden.'"Id.
Also by the Asset Purchase Agreement, Gruntal acquires "any and all security and other deposits with respect to the lease for the Fort Lee Office, ... and all other assets and properties of every kind and description and wherever located, relating to the conduct of the retail brokerage business at the Fort Lee Office."Id.,¶ 1(c).
Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Gruntal "shall not assume any liabilities or obligations of Philips of any kind or nature whatsoever, except those liabilities and obligations commencing as of 19 April 1988, the closing date of the Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Closing Date") under the lease for the Fort Lee Office."Id.,¶ 2.Philips remains responsible for "all obligations, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, losses, damages, expenses, liabilities, fines, penalties, deficiencies and costs ... existing on the Closing Date or arising as a result of or in connection with the business or activities of Philips at the Fort Lee Office prior to the Closing Date."Id.
Gruntal, on the other hand, is liable only for claims "insofar as such claim arises out of or relates to (i) the conduct of Gruntal's business or operations at the Fort Lee Office after the Closing Date, or (ii) the inaccuracy of any representation or the breach of any warranty, covenant or agreement of Gruntal contained in the Asset Purchase Agreement."Id.,¶ 11(b).
The Asset Purchase Agreement is to be "governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts performed wholly within such state, except to the extent (if any) such laws may be superseded by Federal laws."Id.,¶ 15(g).
In or about April to May 1993, the Steinbergs initiated two separate arbitration proceedings (collectively, the "Arbitration Proceedings") against Gruntal before the NASD.The Steinbergs commenced the Arbitration Proceedings, which have been assigned NASDCase Numbers 93-01699and93-01887, by submitting two statements of claim to the NASD Director of Arbitration.3Complaint, Ex. B;RappaportCert., ¶ 5.Both these statements of claim relate to the Steinbergs' account with Philips.Complaint, Ex. B.
The first statement of claim, dated 20 April 1993(the "20 April Statement of Claim") alleges certain improprieties and breaches of duty by Philips brokers Todd Semon and Bob Semon, as well as by Philips itself.Id.According to the 20 April Statement of Claim, the alleged breaches of duty occurred between 21 October 1987 and approximately the end of November 1987.Id.At that time, both Bob Semon and Todd Semon were employed by Philips.Id.The 20 April Statement of Claim alleges that, as of its writing, Todd Semon worked for Gruntal.Id.The 20 April Statement of Claim requests damages totalling $44,486.00.Id.
The second statement of claim, dated 7 May 1993(the "7 May Statement of Claim"), alleges certain improprieties and breaches of duty by Bob Semon.Id.These breaches were alleged to have occurred between 18 October 1987 and 15 February 1988.Id.At that time, Bob Semon was employed by Philips.Id.The 7 May Statement of Claim alleges that, as of its writing, both Bob Semon and Todd Semon were employed by Gruntal.Id.The 7 May Statement of Claim requests damages totalling $17,300.00.Id.
Both the 20 April Statement of Claim and the 7 May Statement of Claim allege that "preliminary" copies thereof were "personally delivered to Michael Pulver, the local attorney for Gruntal."Id.According to the 20 April Statement of Claim and the 7 May Statement of Claim, Gruntal did not respond to these communications.Id.
Gruntal, however, states that it made clear to both the Steinbergs and the NASD "that Gruntal never entered into any contract or agreement of any nature with the Steinbergs to arbitrate any dispute before the NASD, or indeed before any other arbitration forum."RappaportCert., ¶ 6.Gruntal states it presented the Asset Purchase Agreement to both the Steinbergs and the NASD, and requested that the arbitration claims be dismissed.Id.
According to Gruntal, the Steinbergs persisted in their prosecution of the Arbitration Proceedings against Gruntal.Id.The NASD declined to rule on Gruntal's request for dismissal, and referred the question of arbitrability to the arbitration panel.Id.Gruntal received notice to this effect on 15 September 1993.Id.Gruntal states the NASD has "formally advised all parties that it will be scheduling hearing dates by 5 October 1993."Moving Briefat 10.
Gruntal filed this action on 29 September 1993.The Complaint seeks "a declaratory judgment declaring that Gruntal has no obligation to the Steinbergs to arbitrate the claims raised by the Steinbergs in the Arbitration Proceedings."Complaint, ¶ 21.The Complaint further seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Steinbergs from "pursuing their claims in the Arbitration Proceedings."Id.,¶ 26.
Also on 29 September 1993, Gruntal made application for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, enjoining the Steinbergs from pursuing the Arbitration Proceedings against Gruntal pending the outcome of this case on the merits.The court entered the requested Order to Show Cause on the same date.
In examining requests for preliminary injunctions, federal standards are applied.Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc.,882 F.2d 797, 799(3d Cir.1989);System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Dev. Corp.,555 F.2d 1131, 1141(3d Cir.1977).As the Third Circuit has stated, even where "the right upon which a cause of action is based is state created, Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates a federal standard as governing requests addressed to federal courts for preliminary injunctions."Instant Air,882 F.2d at 799(quotingSystem Operations,555 F.2d at 1141).
The Circuit has established that, to prevail on its application for a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show:
Alessi v. Pennsylvania, Dept. of Pub. Welfare,893 F.2d 1444, 1447(3d Cir.1990);see alsoS & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc.,968 F.2d 371, 374(3d Cir.1992);Merchant & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Prods. Co.,963 F.2d 628, 632(3d Cir.1992);Opticians Ass'n of Am. v. Independent Opticians of Am.,920 F.2d 187, 191-92(3d Cir.1990);Instant Air,882 F.2d at 800;Fechter v. HMW Indus., Inc.,879 F.2d 1111, 1116(3d Cir.1989);Apollo Technologies Corp. v. Centrosphere Industrial Corp.,805 F.Supp. 1157, 1191(D.N.J.1992);Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.,761 F.Supp. 1118, 1132(D.N.J.1991);CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Caribe Food Distrib.,731 F.Supp. 660, 664(D.N.J.1990);Bascom Food Prods. Corp. v. Reese Finer Foods, Inc.,715 F.Supp. 616, 624(D.N.J.1989)....
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Victor L. Yu v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
...State Univ. Student Hous. Found. v. Ambling Mgmt. Co., 556 F. Supp. 2d 367, 373 (D. Del. 2008), quoting Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, 837 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J. 1993). The relevant inquiry is whether the requested relief "will (1) clarify and settle legal relations in issue and (2) ter......
-
Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, Civ. A. No. 93-4323 (AJL).
...Gruntal for a preliminary injunction against arbitration was granted (the "Preliminary Injunction"). See Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, 837 F.Supp. 85 (D.N.J.1993) ("Gruntal I"). Currently before the court are the motion of the Steinbergs for summary judgment dismissing the action and va......
-
Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg
...Gruntal for a preliminary injunction against arbitration was granted (the "Preliminary Injunction").1 See Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, 837 F.Supp. 85 (D.N.J.1993) ("Gruntal I"). By opinion and order, filed 5 January 1994, the parties's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied and......
-
Comfort v. Lynn School Committee
...because purpose of Act was to prevent the accrual of avoidable damages, and these had already occurred); Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, 837 F.Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J.1993) (declaratory judgment is inappropriate solely to adjudicate past conduct); Boston v. Lafayette County, 744 F.Supp. 746, ......