Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MAYO v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS

United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division


April 29, 2003

RICHARD MAYO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER & CO. DBA MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER, AND DOES 1-50, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge

ORDER CORRECTING AND AMENDING ORDER ISSUED APRIL 22, 2003
The Judicial Council of California ("Judicial Council") requests that the Court correct certain statements in its April 22, 2003 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Proceedings concerning the Judicial Council's status in this litigation.

On November 26, 2002, the Court invited the Judicial Council to submit an amicus brief in this action. In response, the Judicial Council provided the Court with copies of briefs it had filed in NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc., et al. v. Judicial Council of California, et al., Case No. 02-3486-SMC (N.D. Cal. filed July 22, 2002). The Judicial Council has clarified that its submission was not intended to be treated as an amicus brief. Accordingly, the Court amends its April 22, 2003 Order as set forth below.

1) Footnote 8 on page 8, lines 26-28, is corrected to read: "The Court also received an amicus brief from the California Attorney General that is neutral with respect to Plaintiff's individual argument but which urges the Court not to find preemption."

2) The sentence on page 18, lines 1-3, is corrected to read: "Plaintiff contends that application of the California standards is not preempted by the Exchange Act because the California standards and the SRO arbitration rules share similar goals with respect to disclosure and disqualification."

3) The sentence on page 18, lines 7-9, is corrected to read: "Plaintiff further contends that any additional obligations imposed upon SROs by the California standards are not inconsistent with the obligations of the SROs under their SEC-approved rules."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20030429

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.