Legal Opinion

Gonick v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided December 12, 1988No. C-88-0517 MHPPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PATEL, District Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this action against their stock brokerage firm, Drexel Burn-ham Lambert Incorporated (“Drexel”), alleging violation of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq., and asserting several pendent state claims. The action is now before the court on defendant Drexel’s motion to compel arbitration, to stay these proceedings pending completion of arbitration and to impose sanctions. Having considered the arguments and supporting documents submitted by the parties, for the following reasons, the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. PaineWebber, Inc. v. VoorheesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
  2. Homestake Lead Co. of Missouri v. Doe Run Resources Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2003
  3. Robinson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API