Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 29, 2015No. Docket 13-3963-cvPublished

1ConcurrenceSack, Circuit Judge

I fully agree with the majority insofar as it concludes that the phrase “required to be arbitrated by the FINRA Rules” in the employment agreement (the “Chase Agreement”) modifies the phrase “[a]ny claim or controversy” such that, under the terms of the Chase Agreement, only those claims, if any, that are required to be arbitrated under the FINRA Rules are subject to arbitration. See ante at 273.

I write to express my concern, however, about the panel’s conclusion that New Rule 13204, which amended Old Rule 13204 (as those terms are defined in the majority opinion) by adding collective actions…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bowen v. Georgetown University HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Carol Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transportation System, Inc., Classic Coach and Bill Schoolman, Docket No. 04-0561-CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
  5. Fernandez-Vargas v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API