{"id":562,"date":"2009-08-27T16:41:02","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T16:41:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2009\/08\/monex_deposit_company_cannot_c"},"modified":"2022-08-29T09:05:07","modified_gmt":"2022-08-29T14:05:07","slug":"monex-deposit-company-cannot-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/","title":{"rendered":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tYesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit<\/a> against Monex Deposit Company had to go through arbitration instead because of the mandatory arbitration provisions that were included in the investors’ contracts. Per Monex’s arbitration provisions, three arbitrators from JAMS were to participate in the proceedings. Also, the provisions prohibit the joinder or consolidation of claims.<\/p>\n

While the trial court sided with Monex’s motion to compel arbitration, the appeals court said that the provisions were unconscionable and therefore could not be enforced. It found that the court-not the arbitrator-should decide whether arbitration provisions are enforceable. The court said that Monex’s arbitration provisions failed to “clearly and unmistakably” reserve to the arbitration panel the matter of whether the provisions are enforceable. It also noted that because arbitrators charge healthy fees for their services, there exists a conflict of interest whenever they are asked to make a decision about arbitrability. <\/p>\n

The California appeals court called Monex’s arbitration provisions substantively and procedurally unconscionable-especially considering that calling for a panel of three JAM arbitrators would cost $9,600\/day, with each party sharing in the cost. <\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex Deposit Company had to go through arbitration instead because of the mandatory arbitration provisions that were included in the investors’ contracts. Per Monex’s arbitration provisions, three arbitrators from JAMS were to participate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3798],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration"],"yoast_head":"\nMonex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — August 27, 2009<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex — August 27, 2009\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — August 27, 2009\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex — August 27, 2009\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — August 27, 2009","description":"Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex — August 27, 2009","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — August 27, 2009","twitter_description":"Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex — August 27, 2009","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court","datePublished":"2009-08-27T16:41:02+00:00","dateModified":"2022-08-29T14:05:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/"},"wordCount":426,"articleSection":["Arbitration"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/","name":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — August 27, 2009","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T16:41:02+00:00","dateModified":"2022-08-29T14:05:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex — August 27, 2009","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/monex-deposit-company-cannot-c\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-94","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=562"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28549,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562\/revisions\/28549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}