Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/11/2021 at 04:53:57 (UTC).

MICHAEL GREENSTONE VS MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/20/2020 MICHAEL GREENSTONE filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3418

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

GREENSTONE MICHAEL

Respondents

MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INC.

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent Attorney

MULLIGAN PATRICK JOSEPH

Other Attorneys

MAHONEY PATRICK

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/22/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

12/7/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/5/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/5/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Response to Petition - Response to Petition

10/28/2020: Response to Petition - Response to Petition

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/20/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

10/20/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/20/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/20/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

10/20/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/23/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); Service Date: 10/30/2020; Service Cost: 40.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketResponse to Petition; Filed by: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Respondent); Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Respondent); Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03418    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 26

Greenstone v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. The Court orders expungement of all references to Occurrence Number 2009421 from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository for Claimant Michael Greenstone.

Proposed order to be filed within ten (10) days’ service of this order.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Michael Greenstone (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondents Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Respondents”) on October 20, 2020. The Petition seeks to confirm the arbitration award issued on August 12, 2020 in favor of Petitioner requiring expungement of all references to a certain customer dispute information maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”). (Pet., Exh. 1.) On October 28, 2020, Respondent Merrill Lynch filed a response affirmatively consenting to the relief sought in the Petition.

Legal Standard

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

Discussion

Filing Requirements of a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (CCP § 1285.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:

(a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

(b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4 (emphasis added).) Petitioner has submitted a copy of the Arbitration Agreement, name of the arbitrator, and a copy of the Arbitration Award (Pet., Exhs. 1-4). Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, subdivisions (a)-(c).

Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing (CCP § 1290.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 states in pertinent part:

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4.) Petitioner filed a proof of service showing that the Petition papers and notice of hearing were pesonally served on Respondent FINRA on October 30, 2020. (Proof of Personal Service, filed 11/05/20.) Petitioner’s proof of service with respect to Respondent Merrill Lynch shows the Petition and Notice of Hearing were electronically served. (Proof of Service, filed 11/05/20.) Although Petitioner has not demonstrated that electronic service is permitted under the arbitration agreement or the service statutes, Respondent Merrill Lynch filed a response consenting the relief sought in the Petiiton, The Court finds that Respondent Merrill Lynch has waived any objection to irregularities in service and subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 have been met.

Service of the Arbitration Award (CCP § 1283.6)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 provides that: “The neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.”  (Emphasis added.) This requirement may be satisfied by service by the arbitration, or upon proper service of the Award with the Petition. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.) The Award was served by the arbitrator on August 13, 2020, but the manner of service is not indicated. (Pet., Exh. 1.) However, since a copy of the Award was also served with the instant Petition, the Court finds Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 is satisfied.

Timing of Service of Petition (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4)

A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Proper service of the Award was concurrent with service of the Petition and complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 1288. Nor is there any apparent prejudice to Respondents that the Petition was served less than 10 days after the Award. The Court finds that Petitioner’s failure to strictly comply with Code of Civil Procedure 1288.4 is not a bar to confirmation.

Merits of the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) Petitioner has demonstrated that on August 12, 2020, the arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in his favor and against Respondents requiring expungement of all references to certain customer dispute information as to Petitioner maintained by the CRD. (Pet., Exh. 1.) Furthermore, as the Petition is unopposed, there is no basis to find the Award should be corrected or vacated.

Conclusion

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. The Court orders expungement of all references to Occurrence Number 2009421 from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository for Claimant Michael Greenstone.

Moving party is to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP03418    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 20STLC03483    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 26

Arroyo, Jr. v. Kazmo, LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Kazmo LLC and Staffing and Management Group, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the grounds of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendants Kazmo LLC and Staffing and Management Group, Inc. (“Defendants”) on April 21, 2020.

Defendants filed an Answer and the instant Motion for Stay of Proceedings on August 4, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Motion and Notice of Hearing are not accompanied by a proof of service. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The lack of any opposition by The Court cannot grant the relief requested until Defendants demonstrate proper service of the Motion and Notice of Hearing.

As to the merits, the Court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Case Number 2:19-cv-02720- PA-MRW (“the federal action”), pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).) The documents demonstrate that Plaintiff has filed a federal action based on the same facts as this state action. (Compl., ¶¶8-18; Motion, RJN, Exh. A.) In fact, the Complaint in this action alleges the filing of the federal action in April 2019. (Compl., ¶18.) The documents further demonstrate the district court dismissed the federal action on April 9, 2020. (Motion, RJN, Exh. E.) Plaintiff filed an appeal of the dismissal on April 14, 2020. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Item 58.)

On February 16, 2021, Defendants filed a declaration with a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which was issued on February 10, 2021. As Plaintiff’s appeal of the federal action is no longer pending, the instant Motion for Stay of Proceedings is moot.

Conclusion

Defendants Kazmo LLC and Staffing and Management Group, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is a litigant