Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. v. Leventhal
| Decision Date | 03 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.03-112650REK.,CIV.A.03-112650REK. |
| Citation | 298 F.Supp.2d 160 |
| Parties | RICHARD C. YOUNG & CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. Morris LEVENTHAL, D.D.S., M.S., Individually and as Trustee of the Leventhal Family Revocable Trust, and Judith Leventhal, as Trustee of the Leventhal Family Revocable Trust, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Michael Unger, Rubin & Rudman LLP, Nur-ul Haq, Rubin and Rudman, LLP, Vincent L. DiCianni, Rubin & Rudman, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Angela H. Magary, Brickley, Sears & Sorett, P.A., John E. Sutherland, Brickley, Sears & Sorett PA, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
Pending before this court are matters related to the following filings:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 2, filed July 3, 2003), with Memorandum in Support of Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd.'s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 3, filed July 3, 2003);
(2) Opposition of Leventhals to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and Cross Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Docket No. 8, filed July 30, 2003);
(3) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 12, filed August 21, 2003);
(4) Plaintiff's Marked Response to Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law (Docket No. 13, filed September 15, 2003);
(7) Plaintiff's Marked Response to Defendants' Additional Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law (Docket No. 16, filed September 17, 2003);
(8) Joint Filing for Non-Jury Hearing (Docket No. 17, filed September 19, 2003);
(9) Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Complaint and Motion for Equitable Relief (Docket No. 22, filed September 29, 2003) (10) Defendants' Additional Exhibits E and F (Docket No. 25, filed October 31, 2003);
(11) Reply of Plaintiff Richard C. Young and Co., Ltd. to the Additional Exhibits Submitted by Defendant Morris Leventhal, D.D.S., M.S. (Docket No. 26, filed November 12, 2003);
(12) Plaintiff's Motion To Clarify and Reconsider (Docket No. 27, filed November 14, 2003);
(13) Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Clarify and Reconsider (Docket No. 28, filed November 25, 2003).
On July 3, 2003, plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 2). On July 30, 2003, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion, coupled with a cross motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8).
On July 31, 2003, this court held a Preliminary Injunction Hearing to address the pending motions. At the hearing, the court issued an Order Regulating Nonjury Hearing (Docket No. 9), in which the court required the parties to exchange proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Each party was to mark the proposed findings and conclusions of the opposing party and submit the marked responses to this court for consideration at a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2003. The court's Order also detailed the procedure for submitting evidence at, or before, the September 30 hearing.
In September, the parties filed their marked responses to proposed findings and conclusions (Docket Nos. 13-16). The parties also submitted a joint filing for non-jury hearing that contained the exhibits to be considered by the court as evidence (Docket No. 17). At the hearing on September 30, 2003, after considering the marked responses, the joint filing, and oral submissions, the court informed the parties that it found the record in this case insufficient to render judgment and offered to schedule a second evidentiary hearing. The parties agreed to a hearing on October 21, 2003, which was later rescheduled for November 13, 2003.
On October 31, 2003, defendants filed additional exhibits (Docket No. 25). On November 12, 2003, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants' additional exhibits (Docket No. 26).
After considering the additional filings and oral submissions at the hearing on November 13, 2003, this court ruled against plaintiff. The court informed the parties that it would issue a Memorandum and Order explaining this ruling.
After the hearing, plaintiff filed a motion to clarify and reconsider the court's ruling at the hearing (Docket No. 27). Defendants have responded (Docket No. 28).
Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. is a small family-owned Rhode Island corporation with eight employees that is registered as an investment advisor with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Its principal office is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Morris Leventhal, D.D.S., M.S. is an individual who resides in Ventura, California. He is 84 years old, retired, and suffers from severe diabetes. His medical condition requires constant vigilance, including a 24-hour insulin pump. Dr. Leventhal is a Trustee of the Leventhal Family Revocable Trust. Judith Leventhal also is a Trustee of the Leventhal Family Revocable Trust. She resides in Ventura, California.
Defendant Dr. Leventhal has utilized Young & Co.'s services for over ten years. On March 11, 2002, Dr. Leventhal executed an investment management agreement with Young & Co., which executed the agreement on March 26, 2002. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause states as follows:
Arbitration. In the event of any disagreement between us in connection with this Agreement we will meet in good faith to attempt to resolve such disagreement. If we are unable to resolve the disagreement within 30 days after receipt of written notice by either party from the other that such a disagreement exists, the disagreement will be submitted for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association in Boston, Massachusetts, in accordance with the Rules of Commercial Arbitration of the Association. There is no obligation to arbitrate changes in or additions to the terms of this Agreement, and no arbitrator will have the power to add to or subtract from the terms of this Agreement. Each of us will bear his own costs. Judgment may be entered in any court within the State of Rhode Island.
(Exhibit 4 to Joint Filing, Docket No. 17.)
On May 16, 2002, Dr. Leventhal and his wife Judith, as Trustees of the Leventhal Family Revocable Trust, entered into an agreement with Young & Co., which signed the agreement on June 6, 2002. This agreement contained an arbitration clause identical in language to the arbitration clause discussed above. Both the March 2002 investment management agreement and the May 2002 trust management agreement state that the signor has read and understands the agreement and that the signor acknowledges that the agreement is binding between him and Young & Co. Both agreements also state that Rhode Island law governs.
At some point after June 6, 2002, Dr. Leventhal took exception to Young & Co.'s handling of his trust management account. On December 26, 2002, Dr. Leventhal wrote a notice of claim letter to Young & Co. in an attempt to resolve his dispute, in accordance with the first sentence of the arbitration clause. On January 14, 2003, Dr. Leventhal wrote a second letter to Young & Co. On February 3, 2003, Dr. Leventhal instituted an arbitration proceeding in California against Young & Co. with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Dr. Leventhal seeks in his arbitration claim damages of $59,703.56 plus interest and expenses.
Upon receipt of the arbitration claim, Young & Co. objected to the arbitration being held in California, saying Young & Co. will have to call three employees away from work to attend the arbitration hearing. AAA requested and received submissions regarding determination of the locale. AAA concluded that the arbitration should go forward in California. Because of this suit, the arbitration has been delayed from its scheduled start.
Plaintiff Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. contends that the arbitration clause at issue in this case contains a forum-selection clause that identifies Boston, Massachusetts as the chosen venue for arbitration. Plaintiff asks this court to enforce the alleged forum-selection clause by granting relief on two counts. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief (Count I) that includes enjoining the pending California arbitration and compelling arbitration in Massachusetts. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief (Count II) that includes declaring that the alleged forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable as a clause compelling arbitration to occur in Massachusetts. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief asks the court to enjoin the pending California arbitration and to issue an order transferring the arbitration to Massachusetts.
Defendants offer a bevy of counter-arguments, as well as numerous arguments to dismiss on procedural grounds.
At the most recent hearing in this case on November 13, 2003, I ruled against plaintiff. I informed the parties that I would issue a Memorandum and Order providing further explanation of my ruling. I give that explanation here.
At an evidentiary hearing on September 30, 2003, I informed the parties that I found the record in this case insufficient to render judgment. At that time, I presented the parties with an opportunity for a second evidentiary hearing. Both plaintiff and defendants agreed to the hearing, but both also expressed a belief that the record required no additional submissions.
For the second evidentiary hearing on November 13, 2003, defendants submitted two additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blimpie Intern., Inc. v. Blimpie of the Keys
...to compel arbitration and for declaratory relief is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. 1. Plaintiff also cites Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. v. Leventhal, 298 F.Supp.2d 160 (D.Mass.2003), for the proposition that Green Tree does not preclude a district court from enforcing the procedural aspects of......