Daneshrad v. Trean Group, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-introducing broker’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiffs-traders, alleging that defendant’s decision to close its account with plaintiffs, but still allowed them to deal directly with third-party when buying and selling futures contracts on Standard and Poor’s 500 Index, resulted in their loss of $548,000 when third-party demanded that they increase their margin, and where plaintiffs instead made decision to liquidate their futures contracts. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiffs could not establish that any damages arose out of defendant’s decision to close its account with plaintiffs. Moreover, record showed that plaintiffs’ losses came as result of decline in S and P 500 Index, and that plaintiffs could have continued with their futures contracts so as to realize gains obtained in subsequent rise in value of S and P 500 Index. As such, when plaintiffs elected to sell their futures contracts to prevent any further losses, they also cut off any access to potential gains.