Wu et al v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: This Court orders the parties to come prepared to discuss, at the rescheduled May 18 presentment date for the Prudential Defendants' motion, whether the earlier case calls for a reconversion to a with-prejudice dismissal (including the question whether there is jurisdiction to do so), so that the current action would be barred on claim preclusion grounds. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/4/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL H. WU and CHRISTINE T. WU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 2238

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is the second lawsuit brought pro se by husband and wife co-plaintiffs Michael and
Christine Wu (collectively "Wus") against a host of defendants to assert claims that the Wus had
been victims of securities fraud. For present purposes there is no need to undertake the difficult
task of trying to decipher what this Court's March 23, 2015 memorandum opinion and order in
this case referred to as "an extraordinarily prolix pro se Complaint in Case No. 14 C 5392" (Wus'
earlier lawsuit) -- that chore is left to any reader who may seek to review what this Court said
and did in connection with that first lawsuit and what is being said and done here.
Instead, suffice it to say that on November 14, 2014 this Court dismissed that first lawsuit
with prejudice, after which Wus filed a motion for reconsideration just before expiration of the
28-day period prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 59(e). That motion was ultimately
addressed orally on January 20, 2015, with both Wus present in court but with Michael Wu (as
always) speaking for both.
At that hearing this Court again inquired as to why, despite their acknowledged ample
ability to retain knowledgeable counsel rather than continue to proceed on their own, Wus
continued to appear pro se. Michael Wu responded (Jan. 20, 2015 Tr. 6:9):

Yes, we try, and we contacted 20 counsels. And they will not take our case for
various reasons. We talk to 20 counsels.
After colloquy that then ensued among several defense counsel, Michal Wu and this Court (the
transcript for that morning comprises some 16 pages), this Court stated (id. 11:1):
I don't see any alternative at this level and with these documents to do anything
other than to deny the motion for reconsideration.
Michael Wu then responded (id. at 11:19):
Your Honor, we talk to a counsel. He is willing to take our case if Judge can
change from dismiss -- with prejudice to without prejudice so he can take the case
to a less pleading requirement to FINRA. 1
After inquiring of defense counsel as to whether they had any objection on that score, this Court
granted Wus' request that the case's dismissal with prejudice be converted to a dismissal without
prejudice. 2
But despite Michael Wu's representation on which this Court relied in ordering that
conversion, Wus did not take their dispute to arbitration before FINRA. Instead they have
instituted a newly-filed Complaint against a large packet of the same defendants, bearing the
15 C 2238 case number reflected in the caption of this opinion -- a Complaint that rivals their
earlier Complaint in its impenetrability. Wus are still representing themselves pro se (again just
why is difficult to understand), and their new action has quite understandably been met with a
bulky motion to dismiss filed by various of the defendants (the "Prudential Defendants") that had

1

That is the acronym for Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

2

As Michael Wu had represented in that respect (id. 13:2):

But we need a dismissal without prejudice; otherwise, we cannot take the case to
FINRA.
-2-

originally been set for presentment on May 6 but was then rescheduled for May 18 because the
Wus are presently out of state.
In sum, it looks very much as though Wus have perpetrated a fraud on this Court, whose
ultimate entry of a without-prejudice dismissal in place of the earlier with-prejudice disposition
was specifically predicated on the commitment that Michael Wu made but has later dishonored.
This Court orders the parties to come prepared to discuss, at the rescheduled May 18 presentment
date for the Prudential Defendants' motion, whether the earlier case calls for a reconversion to a
with-prejudice dismissal (including the question whether there is jurisdiction to do so), so that
the current action would be barred on claim preclusion grounds.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 4, 2015

-3-