Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Nordstrom et al

Filing 32

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/5/2017 ORDERING the defendants to respond to the 1 Complaint within 30 days after a final decision is entered by the FINRA Arbitration Panel. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 Buchalter A Professional Corporation 2 DYLAN W. WISEMAN (SBN: 173669) 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 3 San Francisco, CA 94105-3493 Telephone: 415.227.0900 4 Fax: 415.227.0770 5 Buchalter A Professional Corporation 6 VALERIE E. COLLANTON (SBN: 206266) 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 7 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916.945.5185 dwiseman@buchalter.com 8 Email: vcollanton@buchalter.com 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 JOHN NORDSTROM; and INNOVATION WEALTH MANAGEMENT 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 15 FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, 16 Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 JOHN NORDSTROM; and 19 INNOVATION WEALTH MANAGEMENT, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Case No. 2:17-CV-00594-JAM-KJN HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT All parties hereby stipulate and request that the court enter an order 23 extending defendants’ time to file an answer or other responsive pleading until 30 24 days after a final decision is entered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 25 (FINRA) arbitration panel. Good cause exists for this request: 26 1. On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim with FINRA 27 seeking binding arbitration pursuant to Rule 13804(a)(2) of a dispute arising out of 28 B UCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO BN 28306130v1 1 alleged wrongful acts committed by Defendant Nordstrom, a former Fidelity 2 employee, in concert with Defendant Innovation Wealth Management. 2. 3 On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the instant case 4 based on the same conduct and claims as the FINRA arbitration proceeding. 3. 5 On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Ex Parte Motion for a 6 Temporary Restraining Order. 4. 7 On March 30, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, entered a 8 Temporary Restraining Order, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitrate their 9 claims before FINRA (provided Defendant Innovation Wealth Management 10 consented to the arbitration). 5. 11 On April 4, 2017, Defendant Innovation Wealth Management filed its 12 Notice of Consent to Arbitration. 6. 13 The Parties agree that the merits of this case will be resolved in 14 arbitration before FINRA, pursuant to FINRA Rule 13804. 7. 15 Therefore, to avoid unnecessary expenses, Plaintiff and Defendants are 16 in agreement that Defendants’ date to file an answer or other pleading responsive to 17 the Complaint be extended until 30 days after a final decision is entered by the 18 FINRA arbitration panel. The parties respectfully request that the Court so order. 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 B UCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO 1 BN 28306130v1 1 DATED: April 4, 2017 2 BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation By: /s/ Dylan W. Wiseman DYLAN W. WISEMAN VALERIE E. COLLANTON Attorneys for Defendants JOHN NORDSTROM; and INNOVATION WEALTH MANAGEMENT 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: April 4, 2017 LOCKE LORD LLP 9 By: /s/ Nina Huerta (as authorized on April 4, 2017) NINA HUERTA (SBN 229070) Attorneys for Plaintiff FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC nhuerta@lockelord.com Locke Lord LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 485-1500 Fax: (213) 485-1200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ORDER Pursuant to stipulation, and for good cause shown, Defendants’ deadline to 18 respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended to 30 days after a final decision is 19 entered by the FINRA Arbitration Panel. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 4/5/2017 24 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 26 27 28 B UCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO 2 BN 28306130v1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?