Legal Opinion
Mignocchi v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 15, 1989No. 88 Civ. 4739 (MBM)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MUKASEY, District Judge.
Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fen-ner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch), James M. Donaghy, and Ehab Gayed (collectively, defendants), move to stay plaintiff Kent Mig-nocchi’s suit against them and compel arbitration. Mignocchi opposes defendants’ motion to the extent that it seeks arbitration of his securities law claims, and he also moves to preclude any collateral estop-pel effect that the arbitration may have. For the reasons given below, defendants’ motion to stay these proceédings and compel arbitration is granted in part and denied in part, and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Wilko v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Scher v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Storey v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991
- Usina Costa Pinto S.A. Acucar E Alcool v. Louis Dreyfus Sugar Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Axtell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1989
- Nemes v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.