Opinion ID: 655841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Churning

Text: 5 To establish churning, a complainant must not only show that his account was traded excessively in light of his objectives, he must also show that the trading was controlled by the broker. Morris v. CFTC, 980 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). Even if we assume that excessive trading occurred, Marick failed to show that Brannon or Dean Witter controlled his account. 6 The ALJ found that Marick is an experienced, sophisticated trader of commodities who knew what he wanted and sought to implement his investment goals, that Marick was in full control of his account at all times, and that Brannon was an unusually candid and forthright witness whose testimony was true and accurate. The ALJ credited Brannon's testimony that he refused Marick's request that Brannon manage the account. The ALJ rejected Marick's testimony that he did not understand the risk involved in trading the Dean Witter account. 7 Credibility determinations made by an ALJ are given great deference and are upheld unless they are inherently incredible or patently unreasonable. Dohmen-Ramirez v. CFTC, 837 F.2d 847, 856 (9th Cir.1988). The ALJ's findings that Brannon's testimony was truthful and Marick's testimony was not truthful are neither incredible nor unreasonable. The finding that Marick controlled his account is therefore supported by the weight of the evidence, precluding a finding of liability for churning.