# Stern v. Prudential Financial, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 12, 2003 · 2003 Pa. Super. 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753682

## Case

- **Full name:** David E. STERN, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. D/B/A Prudential Securities, Inc. and Kenneth Cohen, Appellees
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 12, 2003
- **Citations:** 2003 Pa. Super. 421; 836 A.2d 953; 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4019
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McEWEN
- **Judges:** Stevens, Klein, McEwen
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9753682

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a “remand is necessary to instruct” the lower court that "the proper method is not to dismiss the civil action but to stay it” and allowing the lower court to reconsider on remand the parties’ waiver issue in light of disputed facts in the record
- applying rule of Borough of Nanty-Glo v. Am. - 11 - J-A03021-26 Surety Co. of N.Y., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) to the resolution of fact questions on preliminary objections

## Opinion text

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
McEWEN, P.J.E.:
¶ 1 While my colleagues of the majority have provided a careful rationale for and a perceptive expression of their position, I am unable to join that position for I would find that appellant David Stern, an attorney, failed to offer sufficient credible evidence to establish the existence of a material issue of fact as to whether the standard industry wide arbitration clause had been amended. I would, therefore, affirm the order of the distinguished Judge Albert W. Sheppard, Jr., which directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753682. Public record. Not legal advice.