Legal Opinion
Rothberg v. Loeb, Rhoades & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 24, 1978No. 76 Civ. 5187PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Loeb, Rhoades & Co. moves to compel arbitration to resolve a dispute which has arisen between the defendant broker and its customer, the plaintiff herein. Plaintiff cross-moves to stay arbitration pending the determination of a reparation proceeding 1 before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The principal issue before the Court is whether the parties should litigate their dispute through arbitration or through a reparation proceeding. For reasons that follow, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Harold Ames v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. And Christopher v. StreitCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes, Inc. v. CsakyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
3Cited by17 opinions
- Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- J. J. Curran v. Merrill LynchCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Hagstrom v. BreutmanDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983
- Michele Amoruso E Figli v. Fisheries Development Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.