Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07144/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee Greenberg
Plaintiff
NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 LEE GREENBERG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NASD DISPUTE RESOLUTION, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-7144 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

FEBRUARY 2, 2007:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities, as well as

relevant declarations, and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they

are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in

advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such

additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only,

without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be

given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. Has Plaintiff petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Rule 10304

(pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78s(h) or otherwise)? If so, what is the status of the petition?

Case 3:06-cv-07144-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. As a self-regulatory organization, NASD Dispute Resolution has immunity from claims

when it is acting under authority delegated to it by the Exchange Act. See Partnership

Exch. Sec. Co. v. NASD, 169 F.3d 606, 608 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Honn v. NASD, 182

F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (granting arbitral immunity to NASD). Further, as an

arbitrator, NASD Dispute Resolution has immunity from civil liability for acts arising

out of its arbitral functions. Wasyl, Inc. v. First Boston Corp., 813 F.2d 1579, 1582 (9th

Cir. 1987) (holding that appraisal corporation had immunity for claims arising out of its

role as arbitrator).

a. Does Plaintiff have any legal authority demonstrating that NASD Dispute

Resolution is not immune from being sued?

3. In his small claims form, Plaintiff alleges that NASD Dispute Resolution committed

professional negligence and promulgated a “misleading” rule. Is this a proper

characterization of Plaintiff’s claims?

4. Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: January 30, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07144-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2