Legal Opinion
MacAulay v. Norlander
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 9, 1992No. Docket Nos. B063790, B063980PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
In this consolidated appeal, we hold that an introducing broker has standing, as a third party beneficiary, to enforce an arbitration agreement entered into between a clearing broker and a stock investor. Mert Norlander, Troy Norlander, and Sufro & Co. Incorporated appeal from an order denying their motion to stay proceedings and arbitrate fraud actions brought by their clients and respondents, Helen Neve and Kenneth E. Macaulay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).) We reverse.
Sufro is a securities broker and provides brokerage services to private investors. As an introducing…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak StreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Carol O'COnnOr v. R.F. Lafferty & Company, Inc. And Roy A. FoulkeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Brookwood v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. Vars, Pave, McCord & FreedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Ronay Family Limited Partnership v. TweedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Smith v. Microskills San Diego L.P.California Court of Appeal · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.