Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.
926 P.2d 1061, 14 Cal.4th 394, 96 Daily Journal DAR 14897 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party opposing a petition to compel arbitration on grounds of fraud in the execution of the contract is not entitled to a jury trial; the trial court must resolve the issue in a summary proceeding. To void a contract for fraud in the execution, the party must demonstrate that their failure to read the contract was objectively reasonable and not the result of their own negligence.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, most of whom were longtime depositors with Great Western Bank (GWB), were approached by representatives of Great Western Financial Securities Corporation (GWFSC) to invest in mutual funds.
- The GWFSC representatives worked from desks located inside GWB branches, leading plaintiffs to believe they were employees of the bank they trusted.
- Plaintiffs allege GWFSC representatives misrepresented risky mutual fund investments as being as safe and secure as insured GWB deposits.
- To open investment accounts, plaintiffs were presented with written client agreements containing predispute arbitration clauses.
- The GWFSC representatives allegedly told plaintiffs that the agreements were a mere "formality" or that it was "not necessary to read them."
- Relying on these assurances and their trust in the representatives, plaintiffs signed the client agreements without reading them.
- The value of the mutual fund investments subsequently declined, causing plaintiffs to lose portions of their principal.
- A few plaintiffs had specific vulnerabilities, such as limited English proficiency or legal blindness, which they claim they disclosed to the GWFSC representatives.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (GWFSC) in the superior court.
- GWFSC petitioned the superior court to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in the client agreements.
- Plaintiffs opposed the petition, asserting the agreements were void due to fraud in the execution.
- The superior court, acting as the trial court, held a non-evidentiary hearing and denied the petition to compel arbitration for most plaintiffs.
- GWFSC, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court, holding that plaintiffs, as appellees, were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of fraud under the United States Arbitration Act, and remanded the case.
- GWFSC petitioned the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party opposing a petition to compel arbitration on the grounds of fraud in the execution have a right to a jury trial on the question of the arbitration agreement's existence under either the United States Arbitration Act or the California Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - the court
No. A party is not entitled to a jury trial on the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement when opposing a petition to compel arbitration. Under both federal and state law, this question is to be resolved by the trial court in a summary proceeding. The United States Arbitration Act's (USAA) provision for a jury trial is a procedural rule that does not apply in state courts. California's statutory scheme, which requires petitions to be decided in the manner of motions, does not conflict with the USAA's substantive policy and is not preempted. Furthermore, a petition to compel arbitration is an equitable action for specific performance, for which there is no right to a jury trial under the California Constitution. The court must act as the fact-finder, determining by a preponderance of the evidence whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. This includes resolving claims of fraud in the execution, which voids a contract only if the party's failure to discover its terms was objectively reasonable and not due to their own negligence.
Concurring - Kennard, J.
The majority is correct that most plaintiffs' claims of fraud in the inducement must be decided by an arbitrator. When these claims are presented to the arbitrator, the arbitrator must first decide the fraud issue. If the arbitrator determines that the contract should be rescinded or reformed to delete the arbitration clause due to fraud, then there is no longer an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Consequently, the arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to decide the merits of the other claims, and those claims would have to be resolved in court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the procedure for litigating the validity of an arbitration agreement in California courts, confirming that trial judges, not juries, serve as fact-finders in a summary motion-like proceeding. By rejecting the applicability of the USAA's jury trial provision in state court, the court promotes a speedier and more efficient process for compelling arbitration. The decision also sets a high substantive bar for claims of fraud in the execution by adopting an objective reasonableness standard for reliance, thereby reinforcing an individual's duty to read a contract before signing. This makes it more difficult for parties to void arbitration agreements by claiming they were misled about a document's character, thereby strengthening the enforceability of arbitration clauses.
