Charlotte B Milliner et al v. Mutual Securities, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03354

ORDER Re: September 12, 2016 Hearing. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/08/16. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03354-TEH 5 Plaintiffs, 6 v. ORDER RE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 HEARING 7 MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Counsel shall come prepared to address the following questions at the September 11 12, 2016 hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment: 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 For Plaintiffs 14 15 1. Is your argument that Defendant had a duty to supervise the investment 16 advisory activities of Bock and Evans dependent on the Court's earlier Order, ECF No. 39, finding a duty was created by the "suitability clause" in 17 the parties' Brokerage Agreement? In other words, do you argue that the 18 Defendant's duty to supervise Bock and Evans would exist even without the 19 "suitability clause" in the Brokerage Agreement? 20 2. You argue that Chevron requires that the court grant deference to the NTMs 21 (Pls.' Reply 5:1-2 n. 2). However, NTMs do not appear to be promulgated by an administrative agency such as the Securities and Exchange 22 Commission. Can you cite any cases holding NTMs are entitled to Chevron 23 deference? 24 3. Can you cite any cases addressing how much deference, if any, courts should 25 give to the Notice to Members ("NTMs") that accompany FINRA rules? 26 4. You argue 15 U.S.C. §78cc "invalidates provisions in brokerage agreements 27 that require customers to waive compliance with FINRA rules." (Pls.' Reply 28 7:20-21). Can you cite any cases where courts have applied § 78cc in this 1 particular way? 2 3 5. Several recent Ninth Circuit cases establish that there are two elements required for "control person" liability: (1) a primary violation of federal 4 securities laws and (2) actual power or control over the primary violator. 5 See, e.g., Howard v. Everex Systems, Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2000). What federal security laws, if any, have you alleged Defendant 6 violated? 7 8 6. What was the reasoning behind the Plaintiffs refusing to provide some documents that Defendant asked for? (See Def.'s Opp'n. at 15-16; Pls.' 9 Reply at 11:15-12:1). Was there a particular difficulty involved with turning 10 over the requested documents? 11 For Defendant 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 1. Can you cite any cases where courts, in applying FINRA rules (or other 14 related rules), have differentiated between RR/IAs acting as registered representatives or as investment advisors? 15 16 2. If we accept your argument that FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280 only apply when registered agents are acting as such (i.e., not as investment advisors) 17 (Def.'s Opp'n. 6:22-7:1), wouldn't broker-dealers always be able to contract 18 their way out of FINRA's supervision requirement? 19 3. If we accept your argument that the application of FINRA Rules may depend 20 on whether a person is acting as a registered representative or an investment 21 advisor, how should the Court determine in what capacity a person is acting? 22 4. Defendant argues the non-binding nature of the NTMs accompanying the 23 relevant rules (Def.'s Opp'n. 9:8-23), yet Defendant's Representative 24 Agreement for Registered Representatives expresses a commitment to comply with "The Rules" which is defined to include "all rule or conduct 25 interpretations and directives issued by the NASD." Also, Defendant's 26 Written Supervisory Procedures Manual directly cites several NTMs. How 27 do you reconcile your position regarding NTMs in your Opposition with the inclusion of NTMs in your policies? 28 2 5. Regarding the discovery dispute brought up in your opposition (See Def.'s 1 Opp'n. at 14-17), please explain exactly what facts you expect or hope to 2 find that should prevent the Court from ruling on Plaintiffs' summary 3 judgment motion now? Why did Defendant not bring up the discovery issue earlier? 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 09/08/16 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3