Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dutton, 88-1247

Decision Date13 April 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-1247,88-1247
Citation844 F.2d 726
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
PartiesMERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Connie J. DUTTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Gordon D. Gee of Rich, Granoff, Levy & Gee (Ron Bodinson of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Overland Park, Kan., with him on the brief), Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff-appellee.

Major W. Park, Jr., of Gage & Tucker (J. Patrick Shepard of Gage & Tucker, Overland Park, Kan., with him on the briefs), Kansas City, Mo., for defendant-appellant.

Before McKAY, ALARCON, * and JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judges.

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., in an action to enforce an employment contract with a former employee, defendant Connie J. Dutton. Because the contract calls for mandatory arbitration, Ms. Dutton argues the district court's injunctive order violates section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3. In light of the agreement between the parties, we hold a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo until the arbitration panel takes jurisdiction does not violate Sec. 3. We therefore affirm.

When Ms. Dutton accepted employment with Merrill Lynch, she executed a contract that prohibited her from removing client lists from her Merrill Lynch files and from soliciting her former Merrill Lynch clients for one year after her departure. The contract also provided:

I further consent to the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction to prohibit the breach of any provision of this contract, or to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of any arbitration proceeding which may be initiated.

This contract, like the employment contracts of all brokerage employees, is supplemented by the Rules of the New York Stock Exchange, of which Merrill Lynch is a member. Rule 347(b) of the Exchange mandates compulsory arbitration for resolution of disputes between members and their employees.

After approximately three years' employment, Ms. Dutton resigned from Merrill Lynch and accepted a position with a competing broker. Immediately following her resignation, she began soliciting customers she had served while employed by Merrill Lynch.

Merrill Lynch filed this action seeking to enforce the terms of the employment contract. The district court granted Merrill Lynch a temporary order restraining Ms. Dutton from soliciting her former customers and prohibiting her from using for solicitation purposes any information she obtained during her employment with Merrill Lynch. In reliance upon Sec. 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, Ms. Dutton moved for an order compelling arbitration and for a stay of further proceedings in the trial court.

Merrill Lynch conceded the propriety of the stay but demanded entry of a preliminary injunction to protect the status quo. After hearing evidence on the motion for injunctive relief, the court entered an order enjoining Ms. Dutton from use of her customer lists and from soliciting those persons whom she had served while employed by Merrill Lynch. At the same time, the court ordered the parties to "proceed with haste to arbitration to be held ... in accordance with the rules of the New York Stock Exchange." In accordance with 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3, the court stayed further judicial proceedings until completion of arbitration.

Ms. Dutton appealed, contending the entry of the preliminary injunction violates Sec. 3, which states:

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or preceding is referable to arbitration ... shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.

While conceding the propriety of the temporary restraining order entered in the district court, she contends the open-ended preliminary injunction invades the authority of an arbitration panel and thus interferes with the policy of the Federal Arbitration Act encouraging arbitration. In essence, she maintains a preliminary injunction that survives the initiation of an arbitration proceeding inhibits remedies within the jurisdiction of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Brendsel v. Winchester, 66, September Term, 2005.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 mai 2006
    ...F.2d 227 (5th Cir.1988); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Salvano, 999 F.2d 211 (7th Cir.1993); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Dutton, 844 F.2d 726 (10th Cir.1988). The focus of those cases was on preserving the status quo—preventing one party from taking some action that ......
  • State v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 24 juin 2016
    ...for the aggrieved party to present its request for injunctive relief to the arbitrator. See, e.g.,Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dutton, 844 F.2d 726, 727–28 (10th Cir.1988). This is so because arbitration-by-agreement typically provides the arbitrator with broad authority, ......
  • Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 13 mai 2020
    ...granting one party a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration."); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dutton , 844 F.2d 726, 726–28 (10th Cir. 1988) (affirming district court's grant of preliminary injunction to preserve status quo until arbitration p......
  • Blumenthal v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 8 août 1990
    ...348, 350-52 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1070, 104 S.Ct. 976, 79 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dutton, 844 F.2d 726, 727-28 (10th Cir.1988). But see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286, 1291-92 (8th Cir.1984); Me......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT