Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 29 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. A102603.,A102603. |
Citation | 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 544,118 Cal.App.4th 1224 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Cynthia M. LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
Plaintiff Cynthia M. Lopez appeals the judgment entered in this action after an arbitration award. We conclude the trial court erred in granting defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.'s (Schwab) motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse.
Schwab is a securities broker, and as part of its business opens and maintains trading accounts for its clients and executes transfers of securities and buy and sell orders. On January 24, 2000, at Schwab's Albuquerque branch, Lopez applied to open an account by filling out two forms. The first was entitled "Open a Schwab Account Today."1 This application form included a section in which the applicant could select either a "Schwab Account" or a "Schwab One Account." The Schwab One Account had a higher minimum balance and offered features that the Schwab Account did not, such as a daily sweep of uninvested cash balances into a Schwab money fund, checks or a debit card, and automatic margin trading. Lopez checked only the box indicating she wanted a Schwab One Account. The third page of the application stated in bold print: "! Remember to sign the Account Agreement on the next page."
The following page contained the bold-print heading "Agree to Terms." Among those terms was an arbitration provision, which stated: At the bottom of this form was a box for Schwab use only labeled "Approved." This box was signed, apparently by a Schwab representative, and an account number was assigned.
On the same day, Lopez also completed and signed a form headed "Transfer Your Account to Schwab," on which she indicated she wanted Schwab to transfer all of her Intel shares from an account with another financial institution.
As noted above, the application's arbitration provision stated that the applicant agreed to settle controversies by arbitration "as provided in Section 17, pages 11-13, of the Brokerage Account Agreement and Section 23, pages 29-31, of the Schwab One Account Agreement." The referenced section of the Schwab One Account agreement contained similar language agreeing to arbitration, as well as disclosures similar to those in the application. In addition, it provided that the arbitration would be conducted by the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), the New York Stock Exchange, the Pacific Stock Exchange, or the Chicago Board Options Exchange; and that either party could initiate arbitration by filing a written claim with one of those organizations. It also provided that arbitration would be binding, and included provisions that would be effective if the account holder was not a United States resident. The referenced section of the Schwab Account agreement contained similar provisions.
The Schwab One Account agreement included several other provisions relevant to this dispute. It defined the Schwab One Account agreement as "[t]he agreement you make with us and the Bank when you open a Schwab One Account, consisting of the Schwab One Application, this Schwab One Account Agreement and any other written agreements between you and us concerning your Schwab One Account, all as amended from time to time." A section entitled "Provision of Services" stated: In a section entitled "Approval of Application, Credit Verification and Account Information," the agreement stated:
In response to Lopez's application, Schwab directed a letter headed "Account Verification" to Lopez on January 24, 2000. The letter began, "Welcome to Schwab"; it included the account number, indicated the account in question was a Schwab One Account, and included account handling instructions.
The following day, however, Schwab sent a letter to Lopez denying her request for a Schwab One Account. The letter stated in pertinent part:
Lopez stated in a declaration that she went to Schwab's Albuquerque office on January 28, 2000. A broker there told her an account had not been opened for her, and she had not been approved for an account due to her poor credit report. Lopez told the broker she was only interested in a Schwab One Account and that she did not want the transfer of assets to go forward. She had no further contact with Schwab until March 1, 2000.
According to Lopez's declaration, she contacted her broker at another firm, Merrill Lynch, to place a trade of Intel securities on March 1, 2000. She was informed that all of her Intel shares had been transferred to another account on February 24, 2000. She contacted Schwab that day, and spoke with broker Lee Lauderdale. He told her that when he learned her application had been rejected, he re-opened a Schwab account by "pulling a few strings" — although not a Schwab One Account — and had transferred her Intel shares from Merrill Lynch to Schwab. He admitted he had acted without Lopez's permission. Lopez demanded that her stock be returned to Merrill Lynch. Lauderdale agreed, but the stock was not returned until after April 1, 2000.2
Lopez filed this action on June 26, 2000, alleging causes of action for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Schwab moved to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings, and the motion was granted on October 5, 2000. On January 28, 2003, the court dismissed the action, noting the matter had been resolved at a binding NASD arbitration that resulted in an award dated April 8, 2002. Judgment for Schwab was entered on April 3, 2003. This timely appeal ensued.
Lopez contends the trial court erred in granting Schwab's motion to compel arbitration, arguing she never entered into an enforceable contract with Schwab. Where there is no factual dispute as to the language of the agreement or conflict in the extrinsic evidence, we determine the meaning of the contract de novo. (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 684, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 809; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 817, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 785; Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1122, 1127, 211 Cal.Rptr. 62.)
Schwab argues we should resolve any ambiguities in the contract in favor of arbitration, pointing out that there is a public policy in favor of arbitration under both federal and California law. (McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 76, 85, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, citing Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (Moses H. Cone Hospital) and Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669.)3 While it is true that under the FAA, "`any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration'" (Rice v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1023, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 265, overruled on other grounds in Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 407, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061, quoting Moses H. Cone Hospital, supra, at pp. 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927), that policy does not come into effect until a court has concluded that under state contract law, the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate. As stated in Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 (Cione), "...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Oakhurst Lodge, Inc.
... ... ' consent; a lawful object; and sufficient cause or consideration." Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1230, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 ... ...
-
Johnson v. Altamirano
... ... , an individual; Sean Sullivan, an individual; Storix, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1-5, inclusive, ... 3d 155, 161 P.3d 527 (2007) ; accord Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker , 47 Cal. 3d 863, 872, 254 Cal.Rptr ... object; and [4] sufficient cause or consideration." Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co. , 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1230, 13 ... ...
-
Situated v. One Bank
... ... of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995), as well ... Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 565, 100 S.Ct. 790, 63 ... In Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., the plaintiff had filled out an ... ...
-
Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar–Rapidpak–MP Equip., Inc.
... ... See Pollution Denim & Co. v. Pollution Clothing Co., 547 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1135 n. 11 ... Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 118 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1230, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d ... ...
-
Family law
...Assent An essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent. Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. , 118 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1230 (2004)” United Rentals (N. Am.), Inc. v. Avcon Constructors, Inc. , CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01656, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014). Mutual a......