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.
See stories of TDAmeritrade misappropriating funds from other investors:
Click
here to add this page to your favorites folder!
Click
here to link to us.
Laurent J. LaBrie v. TDAmeritrade
District Court for Baltimore, MD Civil Case #: 0804-0021814-2010
March 18, 2011
Clerk - Civil Division
District Court of Maryland for
Baltimore County
120 E. Chesapeake Avenue
Towson, MD 21286
Re: Laurent J. La Brie v. TD Ameritrade
Dear Clerk,
Enclosed please find Plaintiff's Post-Hearing Memorandum. I would appreciate your filing it regarding the above matter on my behalf.
I have also enclosed a copy of the Post-Hearing Memorandum, which I would appreciate your date-stamping and returning to me in the self-addressed, stamped, envelope which I have also enclosed.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Laurent J. La Brie
cc: Resident Agent: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating
POST HEARING MEMORANDUM
Your honor, I appreciate this hearing to discuss the MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED EVIDENCE AND THE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES. Only upon obtaining this evidence can I present a more complete and compelling case for my MOTION TO RESCHEDULE CASE FOR TRIAL.
Your honor, I wish to present a short summary of the events in this case, a chronology of the proceedings in this Court to date, and my present Motion.
1. On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff purchased an options contract on a stock through his brokerage account with TD Ameritrade. In January 2009, the contract was exercised as Plaintiff expected and desired. Plaintiff closed its position in March 2009. More than two months after the trade was made and confirmed in multiple documents sent to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, the Defendant informed Plaintiff that Defendant was backing out the trade and would be seizing Plaintiff's realized profit of $15,173.94. Defendant admitted in an e-mail on April 30, 2009 that the trade did in fact occur, which indicates that the Defendant has been unjustly enriched by Plaintiff's trades.
2. The chronology of the proceedings in this Court to date are as follows. After Plaintiff filed the initial complaint with the Court on DC/CV Form 1, the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff filed a Statement of No Contest to the Arbitration and No Objection to the Stay "for a 60 day period ending November 1, 2010 but this non objection is 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" On August 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motion of the Plaintiff.
3. Honorable Judge Steinberg produced a document from the dossier saying that another judge had granted the Motion of the Defendant instead of the Motion of the Plaintiff. The Court could not reconcile the presence of the document with the document sent by the Court which both the Plaintiff and Defendant received other than to state that it was an error. Additionally, on January 3, 2011, the Court granted the Plaintiff's MOTION TO PROCEED, implying that the Court checked the dossier and understood that the Defendant's MOTION TO STAY was not the Motion that had been granted and the document referenced by Honorable Judge Steinberg was not present. Thus, it is unclear to the Defendant when said document was placed in the dossier or by whom.
4. It is unclear to the Defendant what relevance there is to a notation in the dossier when the Court sent the parties in the trial official Court documents stating that the Plaintiff's Motion had been granted. Plaintiff requested that the Court correct the dossier per Rule 3-534. Court stated this was not possible since the Judge who wrote the notation in the dossier was not present and more than 30 days had passed since the notation was made. Since Plaintiff and Plaintiff's legal counsel have limited knowledge of the governing Rule, Plaintiff requests Court cite which Rule guided this ruling.
5. On or about September 1, the Defendant telephoned the Plaintiff confirming its understanding that the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and the next day provided written confirmation of said understanding.
6. The 60 day period elapsed without the Defendant satisfying the condition granted by the Court, so Plaintiff submitted his Motion to Reschedule Trial.
7. The Court Granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Continue on January 3, 2011.
8. Plaintiff sent Defendant a Subpoena and Interrogatories for the Hearing and Defendant has not provided the requested items. Defendant claims that the Interrogatories were untimely since they were not filed within 10 days of the Defendant's Intention to Defend. The Court clerk has denied receiving such a document and the Plaintiff has not received one. Defendant has stalled this case 161 days and still has not notified Plaintiff of any Arbitration filed against the Plaintiff.
9. Present Motion. The Account Application (i.e. Contract) unilaterally prepared and presented by the Defendant to Plaintiff for signature and which both Defendant and Plaintiff signed states, "All controversies concerning ... any transaction ... which may arise between TD AMERITRADE or Ameritrade Clearing, or their representatives and me shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc." As is standard practice of brokerage corporations, Defendant imposed this contract upon the Plaintiff, giving Plaintiff no option other than to discontinue investing in the public markets of exchange. The items and information requested under the Subpoena and from the Interrogatories should demonstrate to the Court that the Defendant knew of the controversy over the $15,173.94 before Defendant reversed the transactions under dispute. Then, the Defendant disregarded the contract by unjustly enriching itself with Plaintiff's funds instead of resolving the controversy through arbitration.
10. Plaintiff believes his Motion to compel the production of subpoenaed evidence and responses to interrogatories is, in substance and timeliness, in accordance with Maryland Rules 3-510 and 3-421, respectively.
11. Plaintiff believes the evidence so obtained will demonstrate the Defendant did not observe its own contractual obligation that Defendant placed on the Plaintiff to take the dispute to the NASD but rather unilaterally, arbitrarily and unlawfully removed Plaintiff's funds from Plaintiff's account. The items under the Subpoena and the Interrogatories should demonstrate that the Defendant imposed an Agreement that it now states it cannot possibly honor, and set a precedent for disregard of the Arbitration Clause.
12. The Court's enforcing said Clause against the Plaintiff when the Defendant disregards it would make a contractual agreement arbitrary and one-sided.
13. Also, the items under the Subpoena should provide the Court with further admission from the Defendant that Defendant understood that the Court had given it 60 days to initiate arbitration. Specifically, evidence should show that on or about September 1, 2010, the Defendant telephoned the Plaintiff acknowledging the Court's decision and informing the Plaintiff that Defendant couldn't comply with the Court's ruling and that the Plaintiff should act on behalf of the Defendant which would essentially reverse the decision of the Court from being in the favor of the Plaintiff and make it in favor of the Defendant. In the conversation that day, the Plaintiff firmly restated the ruling of the Court and informed the Defendant that proper procedure requires Defendant to inform the Court of any objections. Instead of following the Court's direction or requesting a correction of a perceived administrative error, as the Defendant now claims occurred, the Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff to further attempt to coerce the Plaintiff to initiate arbitration.
14. Since Ms. Mason, the Defendant's attorney who telephoned the Plaintiff and signed Defendant's letter, was not directly informed of the Court's decision, the subpoenaed evidence should demonstrate how Ms. Mason was informed that the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. or reveal Defendant's plan to confuse the Plaintiff, knowing that, so doing, the Defendant could, in effect, reverse the decision of the Court. Mr. English was informed of Ms. Mason's understanding from Plaintiff's letter of September 29, 2010. If an administrative error was suspected, the defendant made no apparent effort to get clarification from the court before the 60 days expired.
15. In its Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, the Defendant requested Rule 2-403 protection from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden and expense." Firstly, Plaintiff doesn't know if it is appropriate to apply a Circuit Court Rule in District Court. Secondly, since between September and November 2009, 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, 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. Thirdly, the "annoyance" of this request is much less than that of a long judicial process.
16. And finally, if the Defendant wishes to escape further embarrassment, it can return the profits that were wrongfully removed from the Plaintiff's account and avoid a greater embarrassment of an adverse judgment by the Court and the negative publicity therefrom. Thus, Plaintiff maintains that applying Rule 2-403 to the subpoena is inappropriate, without grounds and should be disallowed by the Court.
17. In Conclusion, Rule 3-534 states "On motion of any party filed within ten days after entry of judgment, the court may open the judgment to receive additional evidence, may amend its findings or its statement of reasons for the decision, may set forth additional findings or reasons, may enter new findings or new reasons, may amend the judgment, or may enter a new judgment." Since 16 times 10 days have passed since official Court documents granted Plaintiff's Motion, an attempt to change the Court's decision to grant the Plaintiff's Motion is untimely. Plaintiff moves that the original decision of August 30, 2010 granting the Plaintiff's Motion should remain, and since more than 60 days have passed without the Defendant taking any of its complaints against the Plaintiff to arbitration, the case should be scheduled to proceed to trial. If there is any doubt in the mind of the Court of the validity of my claim, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court compel the Defendant to produce subpoenaed evidence as well as its answers to the 14 interrogatories presented, so that Plaintiff can bring the Court the evidence kept by Defense in spoliation.
18. Thank you, your honor.
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:
© 2009-2011
