Shearson Haydon Stone, Inc. v. Sather
| Decision Date | 28 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-410,78-410 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 187 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,728 SHEARSON HAYDON STONE, INC., and Ronald Deblinger, Appellants, v. Cheri SATHER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weiner, Robbins & Tunkey and Alan S. Ross, Gilbride & Heller, Paul, Landy & Beiley and Stanley Arthur Beiley, Miami, for appellants.
Fine & Brownstein and Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The appellants, Shearson Haydon Stone, Inc., and Ronald Deblinger, were sued by the appellee, Cheri Sather, upon an allegation that Deblinger, as account executive, mishandled the appellee's account by manipulating it in order to produce commissions resulting in substantial losses to the account. The appellants moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the state courts do not have jurisdiction for this type of action, inasmuch as it involves violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq., and that such actions are pre-empted to the federal courts by the terms of that act. The motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend and the appellee thereafter filed the same complaint, adding a paragraph 1 stating that the actions of the appellants amounted to fraud and that because of the malicious nature of the fraud, the appellee was entitled to recover punitive damages. Appellants then filed a motion to dismiss upon the same grounds they had previously urged and the court denied the motion. The denial of that motion is the principal issue on this appeal.
In Community National Bank & Trust Co. v. Vigman, 330 So.2d 211 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), this court had the same issue for decision. In that case, the first complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. When that complaint was dismissed, an amended complaint was filed which did not base the claim for recovery on a violation of the act but alleged the same factual situation. One of the violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 dealt with in the Vigman case was the "over trading" of the plaintiffs' account for the purpose of creating commissions. This is essentially all that was alleged in the complaint now before us. In Vigman, we held that where the facts disclosed in the complaint showed the action to be predicated upon violations of restrictions or duties imposed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bentley Machinery, Inc. v. Ariga Textile, Inc.
-
Markham v. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., 79-744
...final judgment, on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the cause under the authority of Shearson Haydon Stone, Inc. v. Sather, 365 So.2d 187 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). 1 The trial court entered an order denying the motion to vacate the final judgment, and this interlocutory app......