McInnes v. LPL Financial, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-157-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11356 JANE B. McINNES vs. LPL FINANCIAL, LLC, & another.[1] Barnstable. April 4, 2013. ‑ August 12, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Federal Arbitration Act. Massachusetts Arbitration Act. Consumer Protection Act, Arbitration. Constitutional Law, Federal preemption. Federal Preemption. Arbitration, Consumer Protection Act, Stay of judicial proceedings. Contract, Arbitration. Statute, Federal preemption. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2011. Motions for stay of proceedings and to compel arbitration were heard by Christopher J. Muse, J., and Gary A. Nickerson, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Thomas J. Carey, Jr. (Michael A. Collora & Justin P. O’Brien with him) for the defendant. Bruce A. Bierhans for the plaintiff. John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. John R. Snyder & S. Elaine McChesney, for American Financial Services Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, J. In Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc., 385 Mass. 813, 826-827 (1982) (Hannon), we held that, even where a consumer executed a valid contract agreeing to arbitrate all disputes, a plaintiff may not be compelled to arbitrate a claim alleging an unfair or deceptive trade practice in violation of G. L. c. 93A, § 9. We hold today that such claims must be referred to arbitration where the contract involves interstate commerce and the agreement to arbitrate is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2006) (FAA). Because the plaintiff and defendants in this case entered into a valid contract in which they agreed to settle all controversies related to the plaintiff’s financial account by arbitration, and because the arbitration agreement is governed by the FAA, we conclude that the motion judges erred in declining to stay judicial proceedings and order the matter to proceed to arbitration.[2] Background. In September, 2011, the plaintiff, Jane B. McInnes, filed a complaint in Superior Court, asserting claims against LPL Financial, LLC (LPL), and Karl G. McGhee, Jr., for fraud; intentional misrepresentation; breach of fiduciary duty; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and violations of G. L. c. 110A, § 410 (Uniform Securities Act), and G. L. c. 93A (consumer protection act).[3] As alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, McGhee was a financial […]