NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL ALAKOZAI and STEVEN No. 12-55553
PITTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09178-SJO-JEM
Plaintiffs - Appellees, MEMORANDUM*
v.
CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES
CORP.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chase Investment Services Corporation appeals the district court’s denial of
its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ class action claims. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16 and affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Chase’s motion to compel
arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act ensures that private arbitration agreements
“are enforced according to their terms.” Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982, 986 (9th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662,
682 (2010). We apply contractual interpretation rules, and the intention of the
parties controls. Id. The plain language of the arbitration agreement incorporates
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rules and requires arbitration of
individual claims, but excludes class claims from arbitration. The agreement
contains no waiver of plaintiffs’ rights to bring class action claims against Chase.
It merely provides that class claims cannot be arbitrated by FINRA. Because the
district court has not yet addressed class certification in this case, FINRA Rule
13204(d) precludes enforcement of the arbitration agreement at this time.
AFFIRMED.
2