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.)
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?