Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
Citation | 81 Ohio App.3d 308,610 N.E.2d 1089 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 15271,15271 |
Parties | NEUBRANDER, Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Appellee. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Ronald G. Macala and Salvatore J. Falletta, Akron, for appellant.
Robert N. Rapp, Cleveland, for appellee.
Appellant, David Neubrander, was employed by the appellee, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. ("Dean Witter"), as an account executive from November 1985 to January 1989. To become a registered representative of Dean Witter, Neubrander completed an application for securities industry registration.
Contained in the subject registration form were two provisions which state as follows:
"I hereby apply for registration with the organizations and states indicated in item 10 as may be amended from time to time and, in consideration of each organizations and states receiving and considering my application, I submit myself to the jurisdiction of such states and organizations and hereby certify that I agree to abide by, comply with, and adhere to all the provisions, conditions and covenants of the statutes, constitutions, certificates of incorporation, by-laws and rules and regulations of the states and organizations as they are and may be adopted, changed or amended from time to time, and I agree to comply with, be subject to and abide by all such requirements and all rulings, orders, directives and decisions of, and penalties, prohibitions and limitations imposed by such states and organizations, subject to right of appeal as provided by law; and I agree that any decision of such states and organizations as to the results of any examination(s) that I may be required to pass will be accepted by me as final. * * *
"I agree to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of the organizations with which I register, as indicated in item 10 as may be amended from time to time. * * *" New York Stock Exchange Rule 347 provides as follows:
Neubrander resigned from Dean Witter in 1989. Following his resignation, Dean Witter sent letters to clients outlining Neubrander's departure, its posture as to the potential conflicts involved, and discouraging clients from transferring their accounts to Neubrander's new employer. Neubrander subsequently filed suit against Dean Witter for funds retained in an "Active Assets Account" and for damages resulting from Dean Witter's alleged false, defamatory, and misleading statements to the clients he had serviced. An amended complaint withdrew the first count of the complaint wherein Neubrander sought the return of the funds in the "Active Assets Account."
In response to Neubrander's complaint, Dean Witter filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, which was granted by the trial court. Neubrander appeals, asserting the following assignments of error:
This court will not address the first assignment of error as it was waived by appellant's counsel at the oral argument on this matter. The remaining assignments of error will be addressed together as they are interrelated.
It is well recognized that a clause in a contract providing for dispute resolution by arbitration should not be denied effect unless it may be said with positive assurance that the subject arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Independence Bank v. Erin Mechanical (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 17, 550 N.E.2d 198; Gibbons-Grable Co. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 170, 517 N.E.2d 559; Didado v. Lamson & Sessions Co. (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 302, 610 N.E.2d 1085. In examining an arbitration clause, a court must bear in mind the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
...not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.'" Harrison at * 1, quoting Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 308, 311, 610 N.E.2d 1089. {¶ 15} Revised Code Chapter 2711 authorizes direct enforcement of arbitration agreements through an or......
-
Jones v. U-Haul Co. of Mass. & Ohio Inc.
...arbitration agreement in the employment context. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 33, 111 S.Ct. 1647 ; Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 308, 610 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1992).The evidence presented clearly establishes that Jones was well educated; Jones had a reasonable opportunity to......
-
Oldendick v. Crocker
...where the "clauses involved are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise [a] party." Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 308, 311–312, 610 N.E.2d 1089.Procedural unconscionability involves the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract between......
-
DeVito v. Autos Direct Online, Inc.
...unfairly surprise” a party, the contractual term is said to be substantively unconscionable. Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 308, 311–312, 610 N.E.2d 1089 (9th Dist.1992). Essentially, it goes to the unfairness or unreasonableness of the contractual terms. Featherst......