From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patry v. Rosenthal Co.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Mar 15, 1982
534 F. Supp. 545 (D. Kan. 1982)

Summary

In Patry v. Rosenthal Co., 534 F. Supp. 545, 550 (D.Kan. 1982), the court stated that it was unable to discover any cases holding that state common law claims were preempted by the CEA when they do not conflict with federal law.

Summary of this case from Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc.

Opinion

Civ. A. No. 81-1409.

March 15, 1982.

C. Robert Bell, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff.

Louis Clinton Burr, Gen. Counsel, Rosenthal Co., Richard D. Greene, Morris Laing, Evans, Brock Kennedy, Wichita, Kan., for defendants.


ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS


This case is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants claim that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants exclusive and preemptive adjudicatory jurisdiction for broker-customer disputes such as are involved in this case to the reparations forum conducted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Defendants further claim that even if this Court finds no preemption of jurisdiction, the Court should exercise the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in favor of the CFTC and refrain from deciding this case.

An examination of the 1974 Amendments to the CEA, the legislative history, case law, and scholarly commentary, leads the Court to conclude in this case there has been no preemption, primary jurisdiction does not apply, and thus defendants' motion to dismiss must be overruled.


Summaries of

Patry v. Rosenthal Co.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Mar 15, 1982
534 F. Supp. 545 (D. Kan. 1982)

In Patry v. Rosenthal Co., 534 F. Supp. 545, 550 (D.Kan. 1982), the court stated that it was unable to discover any cases holding that state common law claims were preempted by the CEA when they do not conflict with federal law.

Summary of this case from Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc.

In Patry v. Rosenthal, 534 F. Supp. 545, 548-552 (D.Kan. 1982), Judge Theis analyzed the extent to which the Act preempts state authority to provide remedies for wrongs relating to commodity futures trading.

Summary of this case from Pettigrew v. Oppenheimer Co., Inc.
Case details for

Patry v. Rosenthal Co.

Case Details

Full title:Gene J. PATRY, Plaintiff, v. ROSENTHAL COMPANY and Arthur Goldstein…

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Mar 15, 1982

Citations

534 F. Supp. 545 (D. Kan. 1982)

Citing Cases

Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc.

The legislative history of the savings clause is sparse. Johnson, supra, at 32. Courts and commentators,…

American Agriculture Movement v. Bd. of Trade

7 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added). The cases, see, e.g., Kerr v. First Commodity Corp., 735 F.2d 281, 288 (8th…