Opinion ID: 1702553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lewis's Issues On Appeal

Text: In his initial brief to this Court, Lewis's Statement of the Issues set forth five questions for appellate determination. In his subsequent reply brief, he reiterated those questions and added a sixth one. As thus finally constituted, his issues for review were stated as follows: A. Did the trial court err by ordering the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration where the agreement at issue between a current and retired stockbroker does not include an arbitration provision and, to the contrary, the agreement includes a provision that contemplates litigation in the event of a dispute between the parties? B. Did the trial court err by ordering the parties to arbitrate their disputes where the Appellees (defendants in the case below) failed to establish an agreement to arbitrate and failed to establish that the Purchase Agreement or the dispute arising out of that agreement substantially affects interstate commerce? C. Did the trial court err by ordering the parties to arbitrate their disputes where the contract at issue does not contain an arbitration provision and, instead, includes an `integration' or `entire agreement' provision? D. Did the trial court err by ordering the parties to arbitrate their disputes where the evidence establishes that Lawrence Oakley waived his right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the litigation process? E. Did the trial court err by dismissing the causes of action brought against the Appellees in this cause where the Appellant properly stated claims against the Appellees? F. In the event the Court determines that the claims against Merrill Lynch and/or Morgan Stanley are to be submitted to arbitration, are the claims against Lawrence Oakley so intertwined with those claims to warrant submission of all claims to arbitration or are the claims against Lawrence Oakley properly severable and triable to a jury apart from the claims against the other Defendants? Those issues can be rephrased as follows: 1. Was the Form U-4 sufficiently authenticated as a contract signed by Lewis? 2. Did the Form U-4 (being the contract containing the arbitration provision) or the transaction it evidenced involve interstate commerce to the requisite degree, i.e., did either or both substantially affect interstate commerce? 3. Can the disputes Lewis alleges in his complaint be said to arise out of the Form U-4 or the transaction evidenced by it, or must they be deemed to arise solely out of the Purchase Agreement? 4. What is the legal effect on the Form U-4 of the integration or entire-agreement provision in the Purchase Agreement? 5. Did Oakley's participation in the case from the time he filed his answer and counterclaim (May 4, 2000) until he filed his joinder in the pending motions to compel arbitration (August 1, 2000) represent a substantial invocation of the litigation process? 6. If Merrill Lynch and/or Morgan Stanley are entitled to compel arbitration, should the claims against Oakley also be arbitrated under the doctrine of intertwining?