CHARLES C. LOVELL, District Judge.
Before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant Jackson National Life Insurance Company ("JNL"). First, Defendant JNL moves to consolidate this case with another complaint previously filed by Plaintiff Jeanette Bixler ("Bixler") that arises out of the same transaction: Bixler v. NEXT Financial Group, Inc., et al., CV 11-2-H-CCL ("Bixler I"). This first motion to consolidate is unopposed by Plaintiff. Second, Defendant JNL moves to compel arbitration and for stay of proceedings pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 2-4. The motion to compel arbitration is opposed by Plaintiff.
Both Bixler I and Bixler II relate to a March 9, 2009, transaction between Bixler and Gary Falber of NEXT Financial Group, Inc., wherein Bixler allegedly entered into a security brokerage agreement (the "Client Agreement"), and Falber sold and Bixler allegedly agreed to purchase a JNL variable annuity. In Bixler I, Plaintiff claims that NEXT Financial Group, Inc., and Gary Falber sold an unsuitable investment product to Bixler. In this case, Bixler II, Plaintiff also claims that Gary Falber, acting as JNL's agents, sold an unsuitable product to Bixler. The Bixler II claims against JNL (the provider of the allegedly unsuitable investment product) are for (1) negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4) negligent supervision, (5) insurance fraud, (6) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligence per se, and (8) punitive damages. Damages sought are similar in both cases, and Plaintiff concedes that damages obtained in one case will be offset against damages obtained in the other.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), this Court may consolidate cases when they involve common questions of law or fact, as is the case with Bixler I and Bixler II. Both cases involve the same set of facts, common questions of law, and pose a risk of inconsistent adjudication on the common factual and legal issues. Significant savings of time and prevention of duplication of effort will result from this consolidation. The Court agrees with the parties that motion to consolidate has merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. All further docketing in this case shall be performed in Bixler I, CV 11-2-H-CCL.
The Court must next consider JNL's Motion to Compel Arbitration, which is opposed by Bixler. Bixler presents three arguments in opposition. Her first argument is that JNL is not a party to her Client Agreement with NEXT Financial. Next, she argues that the arbitration clause contained in the Client Agreement is void ab initio because Montana law, Mont. Code Ann. § 27-5-114, prohibits arbitration clauses in agreements that relate to insurance policies or insurance contracts. Finally, Bixler argues that because Gary Falber failed to explain the arbitration clause to her, it is unenforceable.
Plaintiffs arguments are without merit. In the Client Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate
(Bixler I, Doc. 37-4 at 3 (bolded in original).) Plaintiff's allegation that JNL sold her an unsuitable investment product through its agent Gary Falber, a registered representative of NEXT Financial Group, is a controversy arising out of or relating to Plaintiff's account and transactions with NEXT Financial Group. Thus, Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate this controversy. In fact, the bulk of Plaintiff's claims against JNL are premised upon JNL's liability as principal for the actions of its agents, both Gary Falber and NEXT Financial Group, in selling an unsuitable investment product to Plaintiff.
"The strong public policy in favor of arbitration does not extend to those who are not parties to an arbitration agreement. . . ." Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates, 553 F.3d 1277, 1287 (9
Permitting a nonsignatory principal defendant to rely upon the agent's arbitration clause avoids evisceration of the arbitration clause. See CD Partners, LLC v. Grizzle, 424 F.3d 795, 798 (8
Next, Plaintiff argues that the arbitration clause relied upon here is void ab initio because of the application of Mont. Code Ann. § 27-5-114, which approves of arbitration agreements generally, but excepts from that approval in subsection (c) "any agreement concerning or relating to insurance policies or annuity contracts. . . ." This statutory provision is not relevant to the Client Agreement between Gary Falber and NEXT Financial and Bixler, for that agreement does not concern or relate to an insurance policy or an annuity contract. The Court emphasizes that the instant case does not involve a dispute between an insured and an insurance company regarding the contents of an insurance policy. The Client Agreement merely establishes the brokerage relationship between securities broker and customer. The Client Agreement, on its face, in no way states, either explicitly or implicitly, that there is to be any insurance policy or annuity contract purchased. The Court finds this statutory argument to be without merit.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that because Falber failed to explain the arbitration clause to her, it is unenforceable. Because this Court has found as a matter of fact in Bixler I that Gary Falber explained the arbitration clause to Bixler in detail, this argument is also without merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant JNL's Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. This case is referred for arbitration to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, all proceedings herein are STAYED pending conclusion of the arbitration.
The Clerk shall notify counsel and FINRA of entry of this order.