First Technology Federal Credit Union V Lpl Financial Llc Osaic Wealth

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

This case involves First Technology Federal Credit Union's lawsuit against former employees and their new employers for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and breaches of duty and contract. The Credit Union filed both a lawsuit and an arbitration action with FINRA. The Court granted motions to stay proceedings against four defendants (Alfred Jackson, Kristina Hernandez, Sage Kendall, and Jackson Holdings, LLC) under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act until completion of the arbitration action, while proceedings against other defendants (LPL Financial, LLC; Osaic Wealth, Inc.; Family Tree Financial, LLC) continue.

Transaction Type

Employment and trade secret dispute between First Technology Federal Credit Union and former employees/new employers

Issues

The court addressed whether to grant defendants' motions to stay proceedings pending completion of an arbitration action before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The court held that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires the court to stay proceedings when arbitration is pending, and granted the motions to stay for certain defendants.

Holdings

The Court granted the motions to stay proceedings pending arbitration filed by Defendants Alfred Jackson, Kristina Hernandez, Sage Kendall, and Jackson Holdings, LLC, based on Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which requires courts to stay proceedings when arbitration is required by agreement.

Remedies

The Court granted motions to stay proceedings against Defendants Alfred Jackson, Kristina Hernandez, Sage Kendall, and Jackson Holdings, LLC pending completion of an arbitration action before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act. This decision does not affect proceedings against other Defendants LPL Financial, LLC; Osaic Wealth, Inc.; or Family Tree Financial, LLC.

Legal Principles

Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to stay proceedings when arbitration is pending. The Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri (601 U.S. 472, 476 (2024)) held that when § 3 says a court 'shall stay' the proceeding, the court must do so. The court granted motions to stay proceedings against certain defendants pending completion of arbitration action before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Precedent Name

Smith v. Spizzirri

Cited Statute

Federal Arbitration Act

Judge Name

B. Lynn Winmill

Passage Text

  • The Court agrees with the parties that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act applies and that the Court must therefore stay the proceedings against the Defendants who have moved for the stay. Dkts. 49, 50; see Dkts. 55, 56, 57.
  • The motions to stay proceedings against Defendants Alfred Jackson, Kristina Hernandez, Sage Kendall, and Jackson Holdings, LLC are therefore GRANTED. Dkts. 49, 50.
  • IT IS ORDERED that: The Motions to Stay Pending Arbitration filed by Defendants Alfred Jackson, Kristina Hernandez, Sage Kendall, and Jackson Holdings, LLC (Dkts. 49, 50) are GRANTED.

Damages / Relief Type

Stay of proceedings pending arbitration granted under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act