Opinion ID: 2812923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 48 (emphases added).1

Text: FINRA is a self‐regulatory organization that (among other things) sponsors an arbitration forum. See generally Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34–56145, 72 Fed. Reg. 42169, 42188‐89 (Aug. 1, 2007). Use of that forum to adjudicate disputes between FINRA members and “associated persons” is governed by the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”). See FINRA Rule 13200(a). UBS is a FINRA member, and Cohen (a financial advisor registered with FINRA) is an associated person. See FINRA Rule 13100(a), (o), (r). 1 The 2007 version of the Compensation Plan provided for arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., or, in the alternative, the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange. Those entities merged to form FINRA in 2007; later versions of the Compensation Plan were amended to reflect that merger. 5 In 2011, Cohen sued UBS and its parent company, UBS AG, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting wage‐and‐ hour claims under the FLSA and California state law. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, and the complaint was amended to add plaintiffs, each of whom had also entered into the Compensation Plan. Following amendments, the operative complaint alleged: (1) an FLSA overtime claim on behalf of a putative nationwide collective of current and former UBS financial advisors, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and (2) claims under the California Labor Code (“CLC”) and the California Unfair Competition Law on behalf of a putative California‐wide Rule 23 class, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The CLC claims sought civil penalties under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699 (permitting “aggrieved employee[s]” to bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of state labor regulators). The defendants moved to stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 2 et seq., arguing that the claims were covered by the arbitration agreements executed by each of the plaintiffs. In opposition, the plaintiffs argued that Rule 13204 of the Industry Code prohibited 6 UBS from enforcing those arbitration agreements during the pendency of a putative class or collective action.2 The district court (Jones, J.) granted the defendants’ motion and stayed the case pending FINRA arbitration. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied (Schofield, J.). To facilitate appeal, the parties agreed to dismissal of the case with prejudice and stipulated that the plaintiffs would not pursue FINRA arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 16. Cohen then appealed the district court orders compelling arbitration and denying reconsideration.3 2 The plaintiffs also advanced arguments drawn from this circuit’s Amex cases, see In re Am. Express Merchants’ Litig., 667 F.3d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 2012), which the Supreme Court reversed, Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013). Cohen does not press those arguments on appeal. 3 We reject Cohen’s assertion that the other named plaintiffs below joined his appeal. The caption on the notice of appeal lists “Eliot Cohen, et al.” as “Plaintiffs,” and the body of that notice states that the appeal was brought by “Eliot Cohen, plaintiff in the above‐captioned action . . . , on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.” A. 195. This sufficed to give notice that Cohen was appealing individually and as a class representative, Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(3), but did not clearly express any other named plaintiff’s intent to join the appeal, id. 3(c)(4). Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 318 (1988); see also Gusler v. City of Long Beach, 700 F.3d 646, 650 (2d Cir. 2012). 7