Obey Financial Group, Inc. v. Archie Blue, Jr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-554

OBEY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

VERSUS

ARCHIE BLUE, JR., ET AL.

CONSOLIDATED WITH

13-731

OBEY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

VERSUS

ARCHIE BLUE, JR., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 238,202
HONORABLE HARRY F. RANDOW, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Judges.

REVERSED. EXCEPTION OF LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION SUSTAINED. MOTION TO STAY PENDING
ARBITRATION GRANTED.

John D. Ryland
Provosty, Sadler, deLaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel
Post Office Drawer 1791
Alexandria, LA 71309-1791
(318) 445-3631
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Stone Street Capital, LLC
Stone Street Financial, Inc.
Maple Life Financial, Inc.

Robert J. David, Jr.
Post Office Drawer 51268
Lafayette, LA 70505-1268
(337) 269-0052
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Nation Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh

Gregory Engelsman
Bolen, Parker & Brenner, LTD.
Post Office Box 11590
Alexandria, LA 71315-1590
(318) 445-8236
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Sydney Grider

Ryan E. Johnson
Jones Walker, LLP
8555 United Plaza Boulevard, 5th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70809-7000
(225) 248-2000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc.

Michael J. Floyd
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell
Post Office Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307
(318) 445-6471
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Obey Financial Group, Inc.

Archie Blue, Jr.
508 Highpoint Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303
IN PROPER PERSON

AMY, Judge.

With the alleged assistance of a financial advisor, a casino jackpot winner

assigned a number of his annual installment payments to a company in exchange

for immediate payment. A creditor of the jackpot winner filed this matter against

the investment firm of the financial advisor alleging a breach of fiduciary duty

owed to the jackpot winner. The defendant investment firm filed an exception of

lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of an arbitration clause in the client

agreement entered into between the financial advisor and the jackpot winner. The

trial court denied the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but sustained

exceptions of prescription and peremption upon finding that the plaintiff’s oblique

action did not relate back to initial petitions. The plaintiff and the defendant

investment firm seek review in this consolidated matter. For the following

reasons, we reverse the underlying ruling and sustain the exception of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. We also grant the motion to stay pending arbitration.

Factual and Procedural Background

Upon winning a multi-million dollar casino jackpot in 1997, Archie Blue

accepted a twenty-year annual payout option. Thereafter, in 2006, Mr. Blue sought

the assistance of Sydney Grider, an investment advisor with Transamerica

Financial Advisors, Inc. (TFA), and established an account with the company. As

set forth below, the client agreement confected pursuant to that relationship

included an arbitration clause. In April 2006 and July 2007, and with the alleged

assistance of Mr. Grider, Mr. Blue contracted with Stone Street Capital, Inc. for the

sale of a number of his future annual payments from the casino winnings.

This suit was filed by Obey Financial Group, Inc., in April 2010 in its

attempt to collect on a 2007 judgment it obtained against Mr. Blue in the Ninth

Judicial District Court. By its “Petition in a Revocatory Action[,]” Obey prayed

that Mr. Blue’s 2007 assignment of three of his future annual payments be declared

a nullity. It named Mr. Blue, Mr. Grider, and an alleged successor in interest to

Stone Street as defendants. Obey maintained its prayer in several supplemental

petitions, but modified the entities named as defendants.

In a March 2012 fourth amended and restated petition and in a August 2012

fifth amended and restated petition, Obey named TFA as a defendant. Therein,

Obey alleged that Mr. Grider was an employee of TFA at the time “he arranged”

for the April 2006 and July 2007 sales of Mr. Blue’s future annual payments. In

addition to its continued prayer regarding the nullity of the second sale of future

installments, Obey alleged that Mr. Grider’s conduct was a breach of the fiduciary

duty owed to Mr. Blue. It asserted that the breach caused Mr. Blue loss of income

and increased his insolvency. Obey sought damages for that breach of fiduciary

duty in order to satisfy Mr. Blue’s indebtedness to Obey.

In response, TFA filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

related motion to stay pending arbitration asserting that Obey’s petition, at least to

the oblique action against it, must be arbitrated subject to its account agreement

with Mr. Blue.

TFA also urged alternative exceptions of prescription and peremption and no

cause of action. According to TFA’s pleading, it advanced the pleadings “on the

grounds that the plaintiff’s oblique action has prescribed or perempted under

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2041[1] and because the Amended Petition fails to

1
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2041 provides that: “The action of the obligee must be
brought within one year from the time he learned or should have learned of the act, or the result
of the failure to act, of the obligor that the obligee seeks to annul, but never after three years
from the date of that act or result.”

2

state [a] claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the underlying claims the plaintiff

attempts to assert obliquely against TFA.” TFA urged in an appended footnote

that it “asserts these exceptions in the alternative, only in the event that the Court

determines that arbitration is not required.” It further stated that: “TFA does not,

by asserting these exceptions, waive or in any way concede that the Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against TFA or the enforceability of the

arbitration provision at issue.”

Following a hearing, the trial court denied TFA’s exception of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and the related motion to stay. Although it

acknowledged the existence of the arbitration agreement, it found that the

transaction at issue in the oblique action fell outside of its scope.

However, the trial court sustained TFA’s alternative exceptions of

prescription and peremption. It noted that the plaintiff’s oblique action against

TFA was first lodged in the fourth amended and restated petition, more than one

year after discovery of, and three years from, the alleged breach of fiduciary duty

in May 2007. Thus, under La.Civ.Code art. 2041, the oblique action was found to

have both prescribed and perempted in light of the occurrence and discovery of the

alleged breach. The trial court rejected Obey’s contention that the oblique action

of the fourth amended petition “related back” to the filing of the initial petition.

Rather, the trial court observed that Book III, Chapter 122 of the Louisiana Civil

Code provides for both the revocatory action3 and the oblique action. 4 However,

2
Book III of the Louisiana Civil Code, entitled “Of the Different Modes of Acquiring the
Ownership of Things” provides for the revocatory and oblique actions in Chapter 12, Sections 1
and 2, respectively.
3
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2036, entitled “Act of the obligor that causes or increases
his insolvency[,]” provides for the revocatory action as follows:

3

the trial court explained that the actions are separate and distinct. In the resulting

judgment, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against TFA.

Both parties seek review of the trial court’s ruling in this court. TFA files an

application for supervisory writs in which it asks for review of the denial of its

exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Obey appeals the sustaining of the

exceptions of prescription and peremption. Additionally, TFA answers that appeal,

urging the correctness of the sustaining of the exceptions and arguing that, even if

this court determines that the matter was not prescribed or perempted, it should

maintain dismissal of Obey’s claims in light of the arbitration agreement. This

court consolidated the matters for review.

Discussion

Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In light of its foundational nature, we first address TFA’s contention that the

arbitration provision in the client agreement confected between Mr. Blue and Mr.

Grider/TFA is applicable in this case. In light of this argument, TFA asserts that

the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was required to grant its

motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. However, Obey urges that the trial

An obligee has a right to annul an act of the obligor, or the result of a failure to act
of the obligor, made or effected after the right of the obligee arose, that causes or
increases the obligor’s insolvency.
4
The oblique action, wherein a creditor exercises a right to belonging to the debtor in the
debtor’s name, is governed by La.Civ.Code art. 2044. Louisiana Lift & Equip. v. Eizel, 33,747
(La.App. 2 Cir. 11/1/00), 770 So.2d 859. Article 2044, entitled “[i]nsolvency by failure to
exercise right[,]” provides for the oblique action as follows:

If an obligor causes or increases his insolvency by failing to exercise a right, the
obligee may exercise it himself, unless the right is strictly personal to the obligor.

For that purpose, the obligee must join in the suit his obligor and the third person
against whom that right is asserted.

4

court correctly ruled that the underlying cause of the breach of fiduciary suit arose

outside of the TFA client agreement.

Certainly, arbitration agreements are favored under both federal and state

law. See 9 U.S.C. §2; La.R.S. 9:4201. In Louisiana, La.R.S. 9:4201 provides that:

A provision in any written contract to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or out of the refusal
to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing
between two or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy
existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, shall be
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

When presented with a motion to stay in the presence of a party’s claim of an

applicable arbitration agreement, as here, a trial court shall stay the trial after

determination “(1) that there is a written arbitration agreement, and (2) the issue is

referable to arbitration under that arbitration agreement, as long as the applicant is

not in default in proceeding with arbitration.” Coleman v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.,

08-1221, p. 5 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 179, 182; See also Breaux v. Stewart

Enterprises, Inc., 04-1706 (La. 10/8/04), 883 So.2d 983.

Obey does not contest, in this case, the presence of a written arbitration

agreement in the “TFA One Program Client Agreement” entered into between Mr.

Blue and TFA. Rather, it contests the scope of the arbitration agreement and,

therefore, whether Mr. Blue consented to arbitrate the alleged tort of breach of

fiduciary duty in Mr. Blue’s sale of his future payment installments to Stone Street.

Of course, Obey alleges that the sale was facilitated by Mr. Grider.

The TFA client contract, entered into evidence at the hearing on the

exception, indicates generally that:

This agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between
Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (“TFA”), a registered broker-
dealer and registered investment advisor, Sydney Grider, a registered

5

representative of TFA and an independent investment advisor or
Investment Advisor Representative of TFA (“Advisor”) and Archie
Blue, Jr. (“Client”).

In setting forth the “Services to Be Rendered,” the agreement provides that:

Advisor will assist Client to determine if the TFA One Program
(“Program”) is suitable for the Client. Client will furnish Advisor
with complete and accurate information regarding Client’s current
financial situation, including his/her investment goals and objectives,
to enable Advisor to complete a questionnaire. If the Program is
deemed to be suitable for the Client, Advisor will utilize his/her
preferred asset allocation techniques to develop an individualized
investment strategy for Client, which will be based upon, among other
things, Client’s investment objectives, risk tolerance and time horizon.
Client acknowledges that it is Client’s responsibility to provide
Advisor with updated information, as necessary, and that Advisor,
TFA and all other persons affiliated with Advisor and/or TFA have
the right to rely on such information. Advisor will be available to
Client on an ongoing basis to receive deposit and withdrawal
instructions and to ascertain any changes in the Client’s financial
circumstances and/or investment objectives.

By executing this Agreement, Client is hereby opening a TFA One
Account (“Account”) through which Client will authorize Advisor to
purchase and sell/redeem, at Client’s direction, certain securities
including, but not limited to, no load and load-waived mutual funds,
stocks and bonds.

The minimum account size is $25,000. Client may make additional
cash deposits to the account at any time and may withdraw account
assets on notice to Advisor.

TFA and Advisor will provide Client with periodic reports, including
monthly brokerage statements and detailed quarterly performance
reports.

As central to this suit, the arbitration clause, contained within the client

agreement, provides:

6

12. ARBITRATION

(a) Arbitration Disclosure

• ARBITRATION IS FINAL AND BINDING ON THE PARTIES.

• THE PARTIES WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO SEEK REMEDIES
IN COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL.

• PRE-ARBITRATION DISCOVERY IS GENERALLY MORE
LIMITED THAN AND DIFFERENT FROM COURT
PROCEEDINGS

• THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO
INCLUDE FACTUAL FINDINGS OR LEGAL REASONING
AND ANY PARTY’S RIGHT TO APPEAL OR TO SEEK
MODIFICATION OR RULINGS BY THE ARBITRATORS IS
STRICTLY LIMITED.

(b) Arbitration Requirement
Any dispute involving Client, TFA and/or Advisor relating to this
Agreement that cannot be settled shall be settled as set forth in
paragraph (c) below:

(c) Arbitration Agreement
Arbitration. Mandatory Arbitration. Any controversy or claim
between or among Client, TFA and/or Advisor including but not
limited to those arising out of or relating to the Agreement or any
related agreements, including any claim based on or arising from an
alleged tort, shall be determined by binding arbitration in accordance
with the Federal Arbitration Act (or if not applicable, the applicable
state law), the rules of Practice and Procedure for the Arbitration of
Commercial Disputes of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
Inc. (“JAMS”) and the “Special Rules” set forth below. In the event
of any inconsistency, the Special Rules shall control. Judgment upon
any arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.
Client, TFA and/or Advisor may bring an action, including a summary
or expedited proceeding, to compel arbitration of any controversy or
claim to which this Agreement applies in any court having jurisdiction
over such action.5

5
Although of only peripheral interest in this case, we include the arbitration clause’s final
provision for sake of completeness:

Special Rules

The arbitration shall be conducted and administered by JAMS who will appoint an
arbitrator; if JAMS is unable or legally precluded from the arbitration, the American
Arbitration Association will serve. All arbitration administering hearings will be
commenced within 90 days of the demand for arbitration; further the arbitrator shall only,

7

In its denial of the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial

court concluded that:

[T]he claim Obey seeks to enforce through its oblique action does not
arise out of the TFA One Program Client Agreement, and as such, the
arbitration clause contained in this agreement is not binding on the
parties. The Court is of the opinion that when Mr. Blue sold his
payments to Stone Street, this was a separate transaction from that of
the investment dealings with TFA. Because this was a separate
dealing, to which TFA was not a part of, the TFA agreement, and
arbitration clause contained therein, is not binding on Obey. As such,
Obey’s Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and its
Motion to Stay are denied.

On review, we find no error on an underlying conclusion that Mr. Blue and

TFA, through Mr. Grider, executed a valid arbitration clause. Instead, we find

error in the trial court’s resolution of the second prong of the inquiry, i.e., whether

the issue to be resolved is referable to arbitration under the arbitration agreement.

While the trial court determined that the transaction(s) between Mr. Blue and Stone

Street did not arise from the client agreement with TFA and, therefore, the

arbitration agreement was inapplicable, we conclude that such an interpretation

incorrectly resolves the case solely by reference to Paragraph (B) of the arbitration

agreement.

As seen above, Paragraph (B) dictates that disputes “relating to” the “TFA

One Program Client Agreement” that cannot be settled must proceed to arbitration

pursuant to Paragraph (C). However, Paragraph (C), independently provides that:

Any controversy or claim between or among Client, TFA and/or
Advisor including but not limited to those arising out of or relating to
the Agreement or any related agreements, including any claim based
on or arising from an alleged tort, shall be determined by binding
arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act . . . .

upon a showing of cause, be permitted to extend the commencement of such hearing for
up to an additional 60 days. Client, TFA and/or Advisor shall have the right to seek
ancillary remedies (e.g. temporary restraining order, permanent injunction or other relief)
and such action shall not be considered a waiver of such party’s right to compel
arbitration of other claims arising hereunder.

8

Pointedly, the language indicates that the arbitration requirement is “not limited to”

claims arising out of or relating to “the Agreement.” It instead applies to “[a]

controversy or claims” between the designated actors, including those claims

arising from “related agreements.” Further, it is specifically applicable to “any

claim based on or arising from an alleged tort[.]” The oblique action advanced by

Obey’s claim, breach of fiduciary duty, is such a tort claim.

Also, Obey’s oblique action, i.e., breach of fiduciary duty, obviously alleges

the existence of a fiduciary relationship. It is difficult to conceive of how such a

fiduciary relationship existed outside of the very contract on which such a claim

could be based. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in determining that

Obey’s oblique action, by which it purportedly advanced Mr. Blue’s breach of

fiduciary duty claim, is not within the scope of the arbitration clause. Rather, the

underlying action involved a claim between Mr. Blue and Mr. Grider/TFA.

Furthermore, the claim sounds in tort. Given the specific language of the

arbitration clause, it is apparent that the trial court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to consider the matter further.

In finding that the arbitration agreement is applicable, we recognize Obey’s

contention that the arbitration agreement at issue should be rejected as ambiguous,

and therefore unconscionable, under California law. On this point, and in addition

to the client agreement, the TFA client contract contains a choice of law provision

as follows:

11. GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California (without giving any effect to
any principals of conflicts of laws) to the extent that such state law is
not preempted by the provisions of any law of the United States,

9

including, without limitation, the Advisors Act and the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.

Citing this provision, Obey contends that the California case of Hartley v.

Superior Court, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1249 (2011), demonstrates that the arbitration

clause is ambiguous and should be severed from the TFA client agreement via its

severability provision. However, in Hartley, the California court considered an

arbitration agreement that included language allegedly making the question of the

scope of arbitrability one for the arbitration panel. Id. Recognizing that such a

threshold question is typically one for the trial court, it noted federal jurisprudence

indicating that the question can, in fact, be arbitrated. Id. (citing AT&T

Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct.

1415 (1986)). However, that issue can only be reserved for arbitration by the use

of clear and unmistakable evidence. Id. In consideration of that “heightened

standard,” the California Court concluded that the clause was ambiguous as to the

selection of the trier of the arbitrability question. Id. at 1257. It, therefore, found

the plaintiff entitled to a judicial declaration as to the issue of arbitrability.

This case, however, does not involve an ambiguity of the “threshold dispute”

of arbitrability. Id. at 1253. Instead, that issue has been presented to the trial court

and, in turn, this court as reflected by this ruling.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the exception of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and enter judgment sustaining that exception.

Furthermore, we enter judgment sustaining TFA’s motion to stay proceedings

pending arbitration.

10

Exceptions of Prescription and Peremption

In light of the above determination, we do not address Obey’s claim on

appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining TFA’s exceptions of prescription and

peremption. We recognize TFA’s assertion in its application for supervisory writs

and in its answer to Obey’s appeal that this court should grant its exception of lack

of subject matter jurisdiction only in the event of a reversal of the sustaining of the

exceptions of prescription and peremption. However, the foundational nature of

the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction dictates that it be first

considered, as we have above. We further note that, in initially setting forth its

combined exceptions at the trial court level, TFA explicitly urged the trial court to

consider its exceptions of prescription and peremption only in the event that it

found no merit in its exception of subject matter jurisdiction.

Finally, and in light of our judgment on the subject matter jurisdiction issue,

we specifically do not resolve the question of the appropriate forum for

consideration of the timeliness issue. Parker v. St. Tammany Par. Hosp. Serv.

Dist., 94-2278 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/27/96), 670 So.2d 531 (wherein the first circuit

determined that an exception of prescription arising from the merits of the

underlying controversy being submitted to arbitration must be submitted to the

arbitration panel rather than being considered by the trial court), writ denied, 96-

0805 (La. 5/10/96), 672 So.2d 925.

For these reasons, and without addressing the merits of TFA’s exceptions of

prescription and peremption, it is necessary to reverse the trial court’s sustaining of

the exceptions of prescription and peremption. We do so in the judgment rendered

below.

11

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in full.

Judgment is entered in favor of Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. and its

exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is sustained. Judgment is further

entered, granting its motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending

arbitration proceedings. Costs of this proceeding are assessed to Obey Financial

Group, Inc.

REVERSED. EXCEPTION OF LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION SUSTAINED. MOTION TO STAY PENDING
ARBITRATION GRANTED.

12