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
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RULE 3-534 PERIOD
1.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."
2.Plaintiff requests that the Court grant an extension of this period for a period of another 10 days until March 31, 2011.
3.Court conducted a Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion on March 11, 2011.
4.By March 17, 2011, Plaintiff had not received the documentation of the ruling of the Court regarding this motion while Plaintiff had received the rulings on the MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED EVIDENCE AND THE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES.
5.Plaintiff telephoned the Court to ask the Court clerk if the ruling was forthcoming. The Court clerk said the ruling had not been sent but she would send it in the next post. However, clerk stated an inability to include the findings and reasons for the ruling in the same envelope as the ruling itself. Rather, clerk required that Plaintiff send a stamped, self-addressed envelop to receive the details and reasons for the ruling.
6.Plaintiff cannot request an amendment or modification to findings when he doesn't know what they are and the delay in receiving said document has guaranteed that Plaintiff will not know its findings and reasons until after the 10 day period has expired.
7.THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests an extension of the provisions of Rule 3-534 until March 31, 2011 to give the Court an opportunity to receive the envelop requested, process the paperwork, and for it to be returned by postal carrier so that Plaintiff can respond, if necessary.
________________________________
Laurent J. La Brie
5
Pleasant Ridge Drive #205
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Exhibit A. Revised Interrogatories
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of March, 2011, a copy
of the foregoing REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RULE 3-534 PERIOD 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.
© 2011
