Site
search Web search
Search this site or the
web powered by FreeFind
Chronology of FINRA Arbitration Against TD Ameritrade
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
After the 60 day stay, I send my Motion to Reschedule the Trial
District Court of Maryland in Towson grants my motion to reschedule!
TD Ameritrade responds to my memorandum in support of rescheduling case.
TD Ameritrade motions to quash my subpoena of telephone recordings.
Post Hearing Memorandum: the Plaintiff's presentation at the 3/11/11 Hearing.
What is he hiding? Judge Robert Steinberg gives no legal basis for ruling.
Court denies Plaintiff his Rule 3-534 right to contest and correct ruling.
Plaintiff submits recording of conversation where TDA gave false information about investment.
Click
here to add this page to your favorites folder!
Click
here to link to us.
Laurent J. LaBrie v. TDAmeritrade
Laurent J. La Brie In the District
Court of Maryland
v.
Toronto Dominion Ameritrade
Case No. 0804-0021814-2010
MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED EVIDENCE AND THE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1.In accordance with Maryland Rules 2-510(f) and 2-432 [note these are mistakenly for Circuit Court and should be Rule 3-510 for the MD District Court], the Defendant moves that the Court compel Defendant to produce subpoenaed evidence as permitted by Rule 2-422 and respond to the modified interrogatories provided in Exhibit A.
2.In its Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (hereafter in this motion referred to as the "Motion to Quash"), the Defendant claims that it is not under obligation to comply with the subpoena and interrogatories because the case is stayed. The Court granted a stay of 60 days which expired on November 1, 2010. We are now in the year 2011, 70 days after the stay expired and a Hearing on Motion has been scheduled for February 2, 2011 (not 2010 as per an administrative error in the Defendant's Motion to Quash). On January 3, 2011 the District Court informed Plaintiff and Defendant that a Hearing on Motion would be held regarding the Motion to Reschedule Case for Trial. Thus, the claim that the case is stayed is without merit and the Court should compel the Defendant to produce the subpoenaed evidence and respond to interrogatories.
3.Maryland Rule 2-510(a) states "A subpoena is required to compel the person to whom it is directed to...produce documents, electronically stored information,... at a court proceeding". [This is mistakenly a Circuit Court rule.]
4.The items under the Subpoena will demonstrate to the Court that the Defendant knew of the dispute over the $15,173.94 before Defendant reversed the transactions under dispute. These assets were in the Plaintiff's account, assets which Defendant subsequently unilaterally, arbitrarily and unlawfully removed from Plaintiff's account with Defendant and assets important to the livelihood of the Plaintiff's family. The items under the Subpoena will demonstrate at the Hearing that the Defendant signed an Agreement that it didn't intend to honor and states it cannot possibly honor, and setting a precedent for disregard of the Arbitration Clause.i Thus, insisting that the Court enforce said Clause against the Plaintiff will make a contractual agreement arbitrary and one-sided.
5.Defendant claims that "Rule 307(d) notice was mailed on July 20, 2010." No Rule 3-307, "Notice of Intention to Defend", was ever received from the Court or Defendant. The Plaintiff has never received an indication that the Defendant intends to defend itself, but instead has received repeated Motions that the case should be stayed. The Plaintiff sent his subpoena and interrogatories on or about January 4, 2011, (not 2010 as per another of the Defendant's administrative errors that would make his Motion to Quash as untimely as it is nonfactual) the day after the Court sent the notice of the date of the Hearing to be held on February 2, 2011. Thus, the Defendant's claim that the "Plaintiff's discovery requests are untimely" is without merit and should be disregarded by the Court.
6.The Courthouse clerks knew of no Rule 307(d) notice served upon the Plaintiff for this case.
7.Maryland Rule 2-422(a) states, "Any party may serve one or more requests to any other party (1) as to items that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served to produce and permit the party making the request... to inspect, copy, test or sample designated documents or electronically stored information" and lists no time limitations on such serving. [This is mistakenly a Circuit Court rule.]
8.Furthermore, unless the Defendant is prescient, it would have been impossible for it to mail a "Notice of Intention to Defend" on July 20, 2010 regarding the Hearing of Motion to Reschedule Trial that the Court sent on December 9, 2010.
9.Plaintiff maintains that the Memorandum of the Defendant dated January 14, 2011 is intended to obfuscate the decisions of the court and Defendant's own administrative errors, slow the process of the Plaintiff's recovering his property, and force Plaintiff to expend his family's limited resources. Plaintiff wishes to bring the attention of the Court the fact that Plaintiff is an individual fighting an international corporation with over $2 billion in annual revenues and vastly more resources at its disposal.
10.As a further example of the Defendant's delaying tactic and lack of good faith, it didn't observe protocol and has not proposed a Conference of Parties to resolve discovery disputes.
11.Notwithstanding the multiple actions demonstrating a lack of good faith by the Defendant, the Plaintiff will recognize the Defendant's objection to the number of interrogatories presented. In Exhibit A, Defendant presents the following 14 questions in compliance with Rule 3-421.
12.The Defendant requested Rule 2-403 protection from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden and expense." Since the Defendant has already prepared and delivered copies of the telephone log and the telephone conversations to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland between September and November 2009, releasing these to the Plaintiff will not present any "oppression, undue burden, or expense". The withholding of them is spoliation of evidence supporting the facts to be presented at the Hearing. The "annoyance" of this request is much less than that of a long judicial process. So, the only claim remaining to the Defendant is that these will add to the myriad of embarrassing "administrative errors" already disclosed to the Court. If the Defendant wishes to escape further embarrassment, it can return the profits that were unlawfully removed from the Plaintiff's account without having to add the embarrassment of an adverse judgment by the Court. Thus, Plaintiff maintains that applying Rule 2-403 to the subpoena is without grounds and should be disallowed by the Court.
13.NOW, THEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court compel the Defendant to produce subpoenaed evidence as well as the 14 interrogatories enclosed in Exhibit A, so that Plaintiff can prepare for the Hearing presently scheduled for February 2, 2011.
i. To this day, the Defendant signs a contractual Agreement with customers that says, "I agree that any controversy between you and your affiliates, any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents and me (including any of my officers, directors, employees or agents) arising out of or relating to this Agreement, our relationship, any Services provided by you, or the use of the Services, and whether arising before or after the date of this Agreement, shall be arbitrated and conducted under the provisions of the Code of Arbitration of the FINRA except as otherwise provided in the Amerivest Addendum. ... Arbitration must be initiated by service upon the other party of a written demand for arbitration or notice of intention to arbitrate." Yet, Defendant claims to be unable to fulfill the Agreement it authors.
________________________________
Laurent J. La Brie
5
Pleasant Ridge Drive #205
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Exhibit A. Revised Interrogatories
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of January, 2011, a copy
of the foregoing MEMORANDUM FOR ORDER TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
SUBPOENAED EVIDENCE AND THE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES was
mailed, first class, postage prepaid to:
TD Ameritrade
Resident Agent: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company
7
St. Paul Street, Suite 1660
Baltimore, MD 21202
________________________________
Laurent J. La Brie
Chronology of FINRA Arbitration Against TD Ameritrade
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
After the 60 day stay, I send my Motion to Reschedule the Trial
District Court of Maryland in Towson grants my motion to reschedule!
TD Ameritrade responds to my memorandum in support of rescheduling case.
TD Ameritrade motions to quash my subpoena of telephone recordings.
Post Hearing Memorandum: the Plaintiff's presentation at the 3/11/11 Hearing.
What is he hiding? Judge Robert Steinberg gives no legal basis for ruling.
Court denies Plaintiff his Rule 3-534 right to contest and correct ruling.
Plaintiff submits recording of conversation where TDA gave false information about investment.
See stories of TDAmeritrade misappropriating funds from other investors:
© 2011
