Williams v. Rosenblatt Securities Inc.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF SERVICE 104552: The Court dismisses the plaintiff's claims against the NYSE on immunity grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the plaintiff one USM-285form for each remaining defendant, so that each remaining defendant may be served. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/29/2014) (ama) Modified on 7/30/2014 (nt).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
Steven Williams,
Plaintiff,

14 Civ. 4390 (JGK)

- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER OF SERVICE

Rosenblatt Securities, Inc., et,
al.,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff brings this pro se action pursuant to the
Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h), alleging that Rosenblatt
Securities, Inc., (“Rosenblatt Securities”) subjected him to
mental and emotional abuse and harassment because he reported
financial fraud to the United States Securities Exchange
Commission (“SEC”).

The plaintiff’s Amended Complaint may also

be construed as raising a claim against Rosenblatt Securities
under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, because
the Amended Complaint alleges that Rosenblatt Securities
accessed the plaintiff’s emails without his authorization.
Additionally, the plaintiff raises state-law claims against
several Rosenblatt Securities employees, a psychiatrist who
treated him, and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).

By order

dated June 20, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff=s request to
proceed in forma pauperis.

1

I.
The Court has the authority to screen sua sponte an IFP
complaint at any time and must dismiss the complaint, or portion
thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998).

While the law mandates dismissal

on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se
pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.
2009), and interpret them to “raise the strongest [claims] that
they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d
471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).

II.
The plaintiff alleges that Rosenblatt Securities and its
employees retaliated against him and harassed him, and that he
was eventually fired for reporting misconduct to the SEC.
According to the plaintiff, Richard Rosenblatt, Executive
Governor of the NYSE, unlawfully banned him from the NYSE’s
trading floor.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that Jane

Street Capital and Integral Derivatives advised other companies

2

not to hire him and that Dr. Henricks shared private medical
information with Rosenblatt without his consent.

III.
The plaintiff’s claim against the NYSE must be dismissed
under the doctrine of absolute immunity.

Because the NYSE

“performs a variety of regulatory functions that would, in other
circumstances, be performed by a government agency,” Barbara v.
N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 99 F.3d 49, 59 (2d Cir. 1996), and is
subject to the SEC’s regulatory requirements, the NYSE is
entitled to absolute immunity for claims arising out of the
performance of its regulatory and general oversight functions.
D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir.
2001).
The plaintiff’s claims against the NYSE are based on
Rosenblatt’s barring him from the NYSE.

(Am. Compl. ¶ 56.)

Such conduct falls within the NYSE’s regulatory function, and
absolute immunity therefore bars any claims against the NYSE
arising from performance of its regulatory function.
Barbara, 99 F.3d at 59.

See

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims

against the NYSE are dismissed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B)(iii).

3

IV.
To allow the plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma
pauperis, to effect service on the remaining defendants through
the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to
send the plaintiff one U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and
Return form (“USM-285 form”) for each defendant.

Within thirty

days of the date of this Order, the plaintiff must complete a
USM-285 form for each defendant and return each form to the
Court.
If the plaintiff does not wish to use the Marshals Service
to effect service, he must notify the Court in writing within
thirty days of the date of this Order and request that a summons
be issued directly to him.

If within thirty days, the plaintiff

has not returned the USM-285 form or requested a summons, under
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.
Upon receipt of the completed USM-285 form, the Clerk of
Court shall issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service
all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to
effect service upon each defendant.
No matter what method of service the plaintiff chooses, he
must effect service within 120 days of the date the summons is
issued.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to inquire of the

Marshals Service as to whether service has been made and, if

4

necessary, to request an extension of time for service.
Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012).

See

If within

120 days of issuance of the summons, the plaintiff has not made
service or requested an extension of time in which to do so,
under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to
prosecute.

Finally, it is the plaintiff’s obligation to

promptly submit a written notification to the Court if the
plaintiff’s address changes, and the Court may dismiss the
action if the plaintiff fails to do so.

CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the plaintiff’s claims against the NYSE
on immunity grounds.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

The

Clerk of Court is instructed to send the plaintiff one USM-285
form for each remaining defendant, so that each remaining
defendant may be served.

5

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good
faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
July 29, 2014

____________/s/______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

6