Bridge et al v. E*Trade Securities LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER Granting re 38 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56) filed by E*Trade Securities LLC. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/3/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

WILLIAM BRIDGE, JR. and
MICHELE PROFANT,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

16

E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC;
PACIFIC INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC;
and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

17

Defendants.

15

18
19
20

CASE NO. C11-02521 EMC
[Assigned to the Hon. Edward M. Chen]
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT E*TRADE
SECURITIES LLC’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56
Date:
Time:
Place:

April 6, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 5

Complaint Filed:
FAC Filed:

March 1, 2011
August 17, 2011

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. C11-02521 EMC

filed a
1

Defendant E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC’S (E*TRADE) motion for partial

2

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the issue of

3

whether E*TRADE employee Mr. Carl Hartmann recommended or made any

4

representations to Plaintiffs William Bridge, Jr. and Michele Profant in connection

5

with their purchase of Auction Rate Securities (“ARS”) underlying in this action or

6

placed the order for the ARS purchased by Plaintiffs came on for hearing in

7

Courtroom 5 of this Court on April 6, 2012. After considering the supporting and

8

opposing papers, and oral arguments by counsel, the Court orders as follows:
E*TRADE is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issues of whether

9
10

E*TRADE employee Mr. Carl Hartmann recommended or made any

11

representations to Plaintiffs in connection with their purchase of ARS underlying

12

this action. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Mr. Hartmann neither

13

recommended nor sold the ARS at issue to Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds

14

that (1) the allegations against Mr. Hartmann are clearly erroneous and (2) that

15

Mr. Hartmann was not involved in the alleged investment related sales practice

16

violation complained of by Plaintiffs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that E*TRADE’s motion for partial
summary judgment is GRANTED.
S

Hon. Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge D
DERE
SO OR ED
IT IS
DIFI
AS MO
NO

22

RT

23

ER

25

n

M. Che

H

24

dward
Judge E

R NIA

21

UNIT
ED

20

4/3/12

FO

Date:

LI

19

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

18

A

17

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

26
27
28
-1-

CASE NO. C11-02521 EMC