Opinion ID: 735522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jay Jablonski

Text: 50 Jablonski, like Lazara, was a PSI broker who went to work for Smith Barney. Notice of the class action was sent to an incorrect address, although PSI apparently had notice of his address change. Jablonski did not receive notice prior to the opt out deadline, and he did not timely opt out. 51 Previously, because of customer complaints regarding his recommendations of partnership interests, Jablonski had paid $12,500 to the State of Arizona through a consent decree. Jablonski argues that by virtue of the Arizona fine, he is not properly a member of the class, because the class definition excludes: 52 (iv) any person who has been determined ... by any court of regulatory authority ... to have violated any law, rule, or regulation, or committed any wrongdoing, in connection with or relating to the marketing, purchase, sale, or holding of ... the Partnerships. 53 At the January 18 hearing, the district court ruled that Jablonski was a class member. 54 The issue is whether (in the words of the exclusion) Jablonski has been determined to have committed any wrongdoing. In other contexts, Jablonski has taken the position that the Arizona decree, because it was entered on consent, determined nothing. Judge Pollack commented that Jablonski was both trying to assert wrongdoing in order to be excused from the class and to reserve the ability to argue at his arbitration against PSI that he was duped into selling the partnerships. 55 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the Arizona consent decree, and the fine imposed pursuant to it, did not constitute a determination for the purposes of the class exception, particularly because a consent decree does not result in an adjudication against the consenting party. See Cambridge Fund, Inc. v. Abella, 501 F.Supp. 598, 617 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (citing Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir.1976)).