Westheimer v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.
651 F. Supp. 364, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a party to complete the internal disciplinary and appellate proceedings of a private self-regulatory organization before seeking judicial review in a court, even when the party alleges bias in the proceedings.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Gerald and Valerie Westheimer, a married couple, were members of the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX), a market for trading precious metals futures.
- In August 1984, an issue arose regarding whether the Westheimers' trading positions should be combined for purposes of COMEX's position limits; their counsel advised COMEX their trading was independent.
- On March 18-19, 1985, the Westheimers and another individual failed to meet margin calls of approximately $26 million, which resulted in the financial collapse of their clearing firm, Volume Investors Corporation.
- On March 20, 1985, the COMEX Board of Governors suspended the Westheimers' membership, believing there was evidence they had violated COMEX rules.
- On June 30, 1986, COMEX's business conduct committee issued a complaint against the Westheimers, charging them with exceeding position limits, submitting false affidavits, and other rule violations.
- Separately, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a federal agency, filed a complaint naming both the Westheimers and COMEX as co-defendants, alleging that COMEX failed to enforce its own rules against the Westheimers.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Gerald and Valerie Westheimer filed a lawsuit against Defendant Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) in federal district court.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent COMEX from holding its scheduled internal disciplinary hearing against them.
- The court held oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
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 the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies require plaintiffs to complete a private self-regulatory organization's internal disciplinary proceedings before seeking judicial review, even when they allege the proceeding is biased due to a related external lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Leisure, District Judge
Yes, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies. A party is not entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy, including the internal procedures of a private self-regulatory organization, has been exhausted. The court reasoned that Congress intended for self-regulation by organizations like COMEX to be the 'first-line defense' against illegal commodities practices, and premature judicial intervention would frustrate that intent. The comprehensive review process available to the Westheimers—a COMEX disciplinary hearing, an appeal to the COMEX Board, and a subsequent appeal to the CFTC—must be completed before a court can exercise jurisdiction. Allegations of bias are not sufficient to create an exception to this rule; a party must wait for an action demonstrating actual bias before seeking judicial intervention, as there are no 'extreme circumstances' such as a clear violation of a constitutional or statutory right.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, particularly as it applies to private self-regulatory organizations (SROs) like commodities and securities exchanges. The court established a high threshold for parties seeking to bypass internal disciplinary procedures, holding that mere allegations of bias are insufficient to warrant premature judicial intervention. This precedent protects the integrity of the congressionally-mandated self-regulatory framework by ensuring that these specialized bodies have the first opportunity to apply their expertise and correct their own errors. Future litigants attempting to halt an SRO's disciplinary action must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as a clear constitutional violation, rather than simply speculating about potential unfairness.
