KEVIN P. PEARCE, APPELLANT,
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY AND CONTINUUM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: THOMAS A. OTEPKA, Judge.
Rodney K. Vincent, of Vincent Law Offices, for appellant.
James M. Bausch, Richard P. Jeffries, and Adam W. Barney, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellees.
HEAVICAN, C.J., CONNNNOLLY, MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, and STACY, JJ.
[293 Neb. 278] I. NATURE OF CASE
Kevin P. Pearce filed this replevin action seeking the return of computers and files he alleges were wrongfully retained by his former principal after Pearce's agency relationship was terminated. The issues on appeal do not involve the replevin action directly, but instead involve the district court's denial of Pearce's motion to compel arbitration. Because we conclude there is no final, appealable order for us to review, we dismiss the appeal.
Pearce worked as an agent of Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual) and was a registered representative of Mutual of Omaha Investor Services, Inc. (MOIS). Pearce used his own personal computers to conduct work for Mutual and MOIS and stored both personal and client information on the computers.
In January 2014, Pearce's agency relationship was terminated by both Mutual and MOIS for reasons which do not appear in our record. Mutual retained Pearce's personal computers and files, allegedly to protect confidential client
[293 Neb. 779] information stored therein. Pearce refused to give Mutual and MOIS the passwords to his computers, and Mutual refused to return the computers to Pearce until the confidential information was removed. Pending resolution of the dispute, Mutual turned Pearce's computers and files over to a security firm, Continuum Worldwide Corporation (Continuum), for safekeeping.
1. Arbitration Between Pearce and Mois
On March 27, 2014, MOIS initiated an arbitration proceeding against Pearce before a dispute resolution tribunal of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA rules require any broker-dealer such as MOIS to arbitrate disputes with any " associated person" such as Pearce. The arbitration initiated by MOIS involved the dispute over the confidential information stored on Pearce's computers and sought to compel Pearce to provide passwords to the computers so that MOIS could recover confidential information and return the computers to Pearce. Pearce filed a counterclaim against MOIS in the arbitration, asking that MOIS be compelled to return Pearce's computers. The record indicates Pearce and MOIS have been actively participating in the arbitration proceeding, and during oral argument, this court was advised an arbitration hearing had been set for February 2016.
2. Replevin Action Between Pearce, Mutual, and Continuum
In April 2014, after arbitration proceedings were underway, Pearce filed this replevin action against Mutual and Continuum in district court. MOIS is not a party to the replevin action. The replevin action seeks return of the same computers and personal property at issue in the pending arbitration with MOIS. Before filing an answer, Mutual and Continuum filed a joint motion to stay and compel arbitration, asking the district court to stay the replevin action and order Pearce to participate in the already-filed arbitration with
[293 Neb. 280] MOIS. Pearce resisted the motion, explaining his opposition in a written response filed with the court:
It is unique in that Mutual and Continuum are not claimants in the arbitration action brought against Plaintiff Pearce by MOIS. In fact, pursuant to FINRA Arbitration Rules, ...