# Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · August 22, 2006 · 2006 Pa. Super. 229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962740

## Case

- **Full name:** James TROMBETTA, Tara Trombetta Witover and Julie Trombetta Gray v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Peter Gialames and Edward Lewis v. Neil M. Niren, M.D., and James A. Trombetta James Trombetta, Tara Trombetta Witover and Julie Trombetta Gray v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Peter Gialames and Edward Lewis v. Neil M. Niren, M.D., and James A. Trombetta, Appeal of: Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and Edward Lewis
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 22, 2006
- **Citations:** 2006 Pa. Super. 229; 907 A.2d 550; 2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2212
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Johnson, Sole, Tamilia
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962740

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that section 10 of the FAA did not preempt the provision for vacating or modifying an award contained in Pennsylvania’s arbitration act
- stating that the Federal Arbitration Act “does not reflect a Congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration”
- holding that independent agreements thrown together without consideration of their combined effects”
- holding that a contract may only be modified with the assent of both parties

## Opinion text

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
JOHNSON, J.:
¶ 1 The Opinion by my most-distinguished colleague, Judge Tamilia, is carefully reasoned and most persuasive. However, I join only so much of the Opinion as sets forth the facts, at opinion pages 554-557, and the unassailable Section III, appearing at pages 569 through 576 of the Opinion.
¶ 2 The Appellants have raised a single issue:
Is an agreement between parties that disputes between them will be resolved by arbitration and that, in the event of certain decisions of the arbitrators, either party is entitled to seek a de novo review by a court of the transcripts and exhibits of the arbitration hearing enforceable?
Brief for Appellants at 5. In the trial court, the Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., answered this question in the negative. The majority of this panel has done the same. I agree wholeheartedly both with Judge Wettick and Judge Tamilia on this narrow question.
¶ 8 The first two issues addressed by the majority, at pages 557 through 571 of the Opinion, involve important and sometimes complex considerations. Nevertheless, I am unable to agree that the resolution of either of these two issues is necessary in disposing of the sole question brought by the Appellants. Accordingly, I must de- *578 dine to join in that portion of the Majority’s excellent Opinion, since I believe that the issues considered under Sections I and II of the Opinion will be more appropriately addressed when the issues found therein are placed squarely before this or another Court in the future.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4962740. Public record. Not legal advice.