Site
search Web search
Search this site or the
web powered by FreeFind
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
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
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DISTRICT COURT'S GRANTING OF MOTION TO CONTINUE PROCEEDING
1.As is evidenced by Exhibits A and B of Defendant's "Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reschedule Case for Trial" dated January 14, 2011 and Exhibit A of Plaintiff's "Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reschedule Case for Trial," the Defendant both received and understood the ruling of the District Court granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the case for 60 days. This stay was "conditioned on Defendant, within said 60 days, presenting to Plaintiff a confirmation from FINRA that FINRA has received the Claim for the $15,173.94 (and any further financial claims the Defendant has against the Plaintiff) which Plaintiff asserts is due to Plaintiff from the described transactions Defendant executed on behalf of Plaintiff." In short, this sixty day period was to assure that Defendant had promptly started the Arbitration proceeding that Defendant wanted as the method of resolving the dispute rather than the Court proceeding initiated by Plaintiff,
2.In a demonstration of lack of good faith, despite being presented with evidence that Defendant had once acknowledged and understood the Court's ruling, the Defendant now denies what it once acknowledged, by stating that Defendant's Associate Counsel also "erroneously refers to the motion as that of the Plantiff's" (sic) (yet another administrative error).
3.Further, this ludicrous claim by Defendant that the Court committed multiple administrative errors in confusing the Plaintiff with the Defendant on both the motion to compel arbitration and the stay of pending arbitration was not submitted within 30 days of August 30, 2010 as is required by Maryland Rule 3-535(a). Therefore, this claim not only is without merit but also untimely and Plaintiff requests that it be disallowed by the Court.
4.On January 3, 2011, the District Court of Maryland granted the Plaintiff's "motion to Continue".
5.NOW THEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that the Court disallow the Defendant's objections to the granting of the Motion to Continue and to allow any rescheduling necessitated due to the Defendant's tactics to delay the process.
________________________________
Laurent J. La Brie
5
Pleasant Ridge Drive #205
Owings Mills, MD 21117
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 Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
See stories of TDAmeritrade misappropriating funds from other investors:
© 2011
