Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 93-02272
| Decision Date | 17 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-02272,93-02272 |
| Citation | 630 So.2d 1145 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2475 MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER, AND SMITH, INC., Petitioners, v. Francis E. AINSWORTH; Patrick Albert; Harold O. and Evelyn M. Bailey; Raymond J. Brown; Carole K. Costa; Eugene W. Garges, Jr.; and Howard Goldstein, M.D.; Byron S. and Rita M. Hancock; Patsy Kay Jackson, Trustee; Hugh J. Lattomus, Trustee; M. Lewis Laurence and Marlene J. Laurence, Trustees; Harold W. Talbott, Trustee; and Jack A. Taylor, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Burton W. Wiand and Hala A. Sandridge of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A., Tampa, for petitioners.
John P. Graves, Jr., Sarasota, for respondents.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying a stay or abatement of this action. We grant the petition.
The respondents invested in various limited partnerships through Merrill Lynch. These customers initially instituted arbitration proceedings against Merrill Lynch with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD, alleging fraud in the sale of units in the limited partnerships. 1 In response to the customers' filing the arbitration proceeding, Merrill Lynch filed a special action in New York state court to stay the arbitration pending a determination by the court of the arbitrability of the customers' claims.
The New York court issued an order to show cause why the arbitration should not be permanently stayed based on Merrill Lynch's allegations that the claims were nonarbitrable, time-barred, and ineligible for submission to arbitration. The order to show cause, which stayed the arbitration proceeding pending further court order, was served by certified mail on the attorney for the customers. 2 The attorney for the customers did not appear specially in New York at the noticed hearing to contest personal jurisdiction.
After the show cause order was served, the customers sued Merrill Lynch in this Florida action in which they asserted the same claims that were submitted to arbitration in New York. Contending that New York did not have personal jurisdiction over them, the customers also sought to have the circuit court enjoin Merrill Lynch from continuing with the New York action. Merrill Lynch filed a motion to stay or abate these Florida proceedings pending resolution of the New York action and a motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the injunctive relief and declined to stay these proceedings, questioning whether New York properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the customers. 3
If courts of different states have concurrent jurisdiction over the same parties and subject matter, the "principle of priority" may be applied as a matter of comity. Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So.2d 1267 (Fla.1991 (approving the reasoning of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982, petition for review dismissed, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983; Norris v. Norris, 573 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991. The principle, which technically applies only to matters among courts within the same sovereignty, provides that the court first exercising jurisdiction acquires exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. Siegel, 575 So.2d at 1272, quoting from Bedingfield, 417 So.2d at 1050; see also 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts Sec. 128 (1965; 21 C.J.S. Courts Sec. 224 (1990.
Under the circumstances in this case, the circuit court as a matter of comity should have stayed this action in view of the New York court's prior exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. There was no showing of undue delay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shooster v. BT Orlando Ltd. Partnership
...stay order. We have jurisdiction. See Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993). We agree with the petitioner that the successor judge departed from the essential requirements of th......
-
OPKO Health, Inc. v. Lipsius
...parties and subject matter, the ‘principle of priority’ may be applied as a matter of comity." Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1991) ). Pursuant to this principle, "the court ......
-
In re Guardianship of Morrison
...to another case from this court in which we held that the principle of priority applied. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In Merrill Lynch, some of Merrill Lynch's customers instituted arbitration proceedings in New York again......
-
Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 99-210.
...case, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to respect the principle of priority. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (certiorari granted where trial court refused to stay action, stating that principle of priority p......