Bank Of Am. v. Umb Financial Serv. Inc
| Decision Date | 26 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | 09-3449,09-3393,10-1041.,No. 09-3173,09-3173 |
| Parties | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.UMB FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Sheryl, Bosilevac; Elizabeth C. Brown; Aaron Israelite; Amy Pieper; Molly Kerr, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Barry L. Pickens, argued, Douglas M. Weems, David M. Kight, on the brief, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Michael Jay Abrams, argued, Robert Kent Sellers, Jack D. Rowe, Patrick L. Kenney, on the brief, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.
Before BYE, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
UMB Financial Services and individual defendants appeal a series of orders in which the district court 1 declined to compel Bank of America (BOA) to submit to arbitration and declined to stay litigation pending the outcome of such arbitration. We affirm.
Sheryl Bolsilevac, Elizabeth Brown, Aaron Israelite, Amy Pieper, and Molly Kerr all worked for BOA as financial advisors for high-net-worth clients of the bank. Bosilevac, Brown, Pieper, and Israelite, were licensed to broker securities; Kerr was not. All five were paid salary by BOA. They also periodically received commissions from Banc of America Investment Services (BOAIS), a subsidiary of BOA which dealt with investments in securities, when such commissions came from a securities-related sale.
All five employees worked under employment agreements that included non-solicitation clauses which prohibited them from soliciting BOA customers for a period of time if they left BOA's employment. The non-solicitation clauses for three of the employees-Bosilevac, Brown, and Pieper-referred to both BOA and BOAIS 2 and provided as follows:
Registered Representative agrees to solicit the sale of, market, and/or sell securities only for Firm pursuant to this Agreement, except as otherwise approved in writing by Firm. Should the Registered Representative separate from the Firm, Bank or the Affiliate, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, the former Registered Representative agrees that, for a period of one year, the Registered Representative may not and will not solicit or attempt to solicit any securities related business, directly or indirectly, any Firm, Bank or Affiliate customers who were served by or whose names became known to the Registered Representative while in the employ of the Firm, Bank, Affiliate, or any of their predecessors.
The non-solicitation agreements for the other two employees-Israelite and Kerr-referred only to BOA and contained the statement:
If I am hired as an employee of the Bank, I agree that for the period of my employment by the Bank and for six months after the date of the termination of my employment with the Bank, I will not (i) solicit or induce any associates of the Bank to leave the employ of the Bank or (ii) solicit the business of any customer of the Bank (other than on behalf of the Bank) of whom I became aware or was introduced in the course of my duties for the Bank.
Thus, the non-solicitation period was one year for Bosilevac, Brown, and Pieper, and six months for Israelite and Kerr.
All five employees left BOA in the spring of 2009 and started work for UMB, where their duties did not include the sale of securities. BOA believed the five employees began courting their previous customers from BOA in violation of the non-solicitation agreements. On May 15, 2009, counsel for BOA and BOAIS sent a letter to UMB demanding that UMB cease “any efforts to contribute or cause current or former Bank of America employees to violate their obligations regarding nonsolicitation[.]”
BOA filed this suit on July 27, 2009, to enforce all five agreements and sought damages. BOAIS never brought claims against the employees. BOA requested a temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable loss of its client base during the litigation. Three days later, UMB responded by moving to dismiss the complaint for failure to join BOAIS as a necessary party and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court immediately granted BOA's request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) pending a hearing on BOA's request for a preliminary injunction set for August 19. On August 3, UMB moved again to dismiss the case, this time for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and moved in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings.
On August 6, UMB also filed a statement of claim with the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to commence arbitration proceedings against BOA and BOAIS. FINRA is the organization that issued licenses to Bosilevac, Brown, Pieper, and Israelite to broker securities. FINRA was formed by consolidation of NYSE Regulation, Inc. (the enforcement arm of the New York Stock Exchange) and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (the regulating organization for securities brokers). Organized under 15 U.S.C. § 78s, part of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA), FINRA regulates the securities industry pursuant to an agreement between its member entities and approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission. FINRA is a private entity, part of the system of self-regulation set up under SEA.
FINRA has its own Code of Arbitration for disputes between members and between members and their employees. Each member of FINRA agrees, by membership, to submit to arbitration if a are defined under the FINRA code as individuals who are registered with FINRA, whereas “members” refers to the organizations regulated by FINRA. UMB Financial Services is a member of FINRA. BOA is not a member of FINRA. BOA claims none of the individual defendants, except for Pieper, work for UMB Financial and requested leave of the district court to substitute UMB Bank (a non-FINRA entity) as defendant. That motion is stayed along with the rest of the district court proceedings pending the outcome of these appeals.
On August 7, UMB moved to stay proceedings in district court pending outcome of the arbitration and asked the district court to compel BOA to participate in the FINRA proceedings. On August 28, the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration “without prejudice” and expressed its intent to preserve the status quo until it could hear argument and adequately consider the issues before it. FINRA sent the district court a letter stating that it intended to conduct the arbitration because the district court had not specifically enjoined UMB and the five former BOA employees from arbitration with BOAIS, but indicating FINRA would comply with any subsequent order directly enjoining such arbitration. The district court entered an order sua sponte on September 10 enjoining the parties from arbitrating their dispute until the court ruled otherwise, and reiterating its intent to preserve the status quo while it considered the issues.
On September 11, 2009, UMB appealed both the district court's August 28 order denying the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, and the district court's September 10 order enjoining the arbitration. UMB also filed a request to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. The same day, the district court heard argument on the motion to stay proceedings, granted the stay, and extended the TRO to October 14, finding UMB did not oppose such extension in light of the stay. UMB subsequently appealed that order. On October 9, BOA moved to extend the TRO or, in the alternative, for a hearing on the preliminary injunction. The court granted the extension of the TRO and UMB subsequently appealed that order.
On October 15, BOA moved this court to dismiss the appeals or stay them pending the district court's decision on the preliminary injunction. We denied the motion to dismiss but stayed the appeals so the district court could rule on the preliminary injunction.
The district court lifted its earlier stay and denied both of UMB's pending dispositive motions but joined BOAIS as a necessary party on December 14, 2009. UMB moved the next day to compel arbitration with BOAIS, renewed its motion to compel arbitration with BOA, and requested another stay of the district court proceedings. BOAIS had joined BOA's resistance to its inclusion as a necessary party, stating that it had no claims in the litigation and waiving any claims that could arise out of the subject matter of the litigation. BOAIS has never filed a claim in this litigation and has not filed anything since it was joined as an involuntary plaintiff. On December 23, the district court denied UMB's new motions to compel and requests for a stay of proceedings. The district court also denied BOA's request to equitably extend the term of Israelite's and Kerr's non-solicitation agreements, which had expired during the litigation.
On December 24, the district court granted BOA's request for a preliminary injunction, restraining the three individuals with active non-solicitation agreements from violating them further and restraining UMB from doing business with customers acquired in violation of any of the agreements. UMB appealed.
The four appeals were consolidated and expedited and the district court stayed the litigation pending resolution in this court. Although the orders appealed from address a number of issues, UMB only addresses on appeal the question of whether the district court should have compelled BOA and BOAIS to arbitrate in the FINRA proceedings, and whether the district court consequently erred when it enjoined the parties from proceeding with the FINRA arbitration.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Cartwright
...this. See, e.g. , J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. McDonald , 760 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc. , 618 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2010). And Mr. Cartwright can't circumvent this law by disguising his FINRA claim as a negligence claim. See, e.g. , Vale......
-
Thomas v. Westlake
...Andersen LLP v. Carlisle (2009) 556 U.S. 624, 630–632, 129 S.Ct. 1896, 1902, 173 L.Ed.2d 832, 839–840; Bank of America v. UMB Financial Services, Inc. (8th Cir.2010) 618 F.3d 906, 912.) 8. FINRA Rule 12200 (Arbitration Under an Arbitration Agreement or the Rules of FINRA) provides: “Parties......
-
Union Ins. Co. v. Hull & Co.
...law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration....” Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc., 618 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24–25, 103 S.Ct. 927 (1983)). “[H]owever, the presumption of arbitrabili......
-
Brondyke v. Bridgepoint Educ., Inc.
...of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc., 618 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The scope of an arbitration agreement is given a liberal inter......