Opinion ID: 8916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Security Pacific

Text: Dillard asserted claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, and violations of RICO, Hobbs Act, civil rights laws, and antitrust laws, against Security Pacific, Inc., Security Pacific Brokers, Inc., and Financial Clearing & Services Corp. (FCSC). Dillard has agreed to arbitrate his claims against these entities. Dillard asserted all but the antitrust claims against J&G, with whom he opposes arbitration. Dillard’s claims against J&G are based on acts J&G took as an agent of Security Pacific Brokers in matters related to Dillard’s margin and option accounts. Claims against an agent of a signatory to an arbitration agreement are arbitrable if such claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Taylor v. Investors Assoc., Inc., 29 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1994) (defendant’s motion to compel arbitration must be granted where the defendant is an agent or third-party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and a co-defendant). Because claims against J&G fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the district court properly issued orders compelling arbitration of those claims, dismissing the case against the Security Pacific defendants and J&G, and denying these defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 6