Traudt v. Rubenstein et al
| Vermont District Court | |
| Judge: | Christina Reiss |
| Case #: | 2:24-cv-00782 |
| Nature of Suit | 470 Other Statutes - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| Cause | 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Case Filed: | Jul 17, 2024 |
| Last checked: Saturday Aug 31, 2024 6:21 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Charles W. Schwab and Co. Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
GTS Securities LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Gary Gensler
|
|
|
Defendant
Ari Rubenstein
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Schwab Holdings, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Scott Traudt
191 Kibling Hill Road
Strafford, VT 05072 |
| Docket last updated: 11/11/2024 11:59 PM EST |
| Friday, November 08, 2024 | ||
| 87 | 87
motion
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Fri 11/08 2:14 PM
UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to68 MOTION to Dismiss4 Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim as Untimely and Prejudicial filed by Scott Traudt. (Traudt, Scott) Event/text clarified, link added on 11/8/2024 (law) |
|
| Tuesday, November 05, 2024 | ||
| 86 | 86
order
Order on Motion to Extend Time
Tue 11/05 12:12 PM
ORDER GRANTING83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to68 MOTION to Dismiss4 Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim as Untimely and Prejudicial . Signed by Chief District Judge Christina Reiss on 11/5/2024. (This is a text-only Order.) (ejh) Text clarified on 11/5/2024 (law) |
|
| 85 | 85
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Tue 11/05 11:15 AM
REPLY to Response to44 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (Judge, Jr., Walter) |
|
| 84 | 84
order
Order on Motion to Stay
Tue 11/05 10:58 AM
ORDER DENYING39 Motion to Hold All Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Arbitration in Abeyance. Plaintiff's primary argument for staying proceedings in this case is that if the court declares Defendant Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") to be "illegal," the discovery process will be simplified and any arbitration agreement involving FINRA rules will become void. (Doc. 39 at 7.) Because Plaintiff does not allege in his Initial Complaint or Amended Complaint that FINRA lacks legal status as an organization or exists in violation of the United States Constitution, this claim is not properly before the court. See Connelly v. Ferguson , 2022 WL 123800, at *3 (D. Vt. Jan. 13, 2022) (finding cause of action "not properly before the court" because it did not appear in the complaint); Thomas v. Egan , 1 F. App'x 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2001) ("A claim must be set forth in the pleadings, in order to give defendants fair notice of the nature of the plaintiff's claim."). Plaintiff further asks the court to hear his "motions for injunctive relief" before addressing any of the dispositive motions filed by Defendants, but he has not filed a motion for injunctive relief; rather, he raised requests for injunctive relief in his reply brief to another motion. (Doc. 39 at 10.) See Windward Bora LLC v. Sotomayor , 113 F.4th 236, 245 n.6 (2d Cir. 2024) (noting argument was "improper because it was raised for the first time in [the party's] reply brief"). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that a stay is necessary. Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) ("The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need."). Signed by Chief District Judge Christina Reiss on 11/5/2024. (This is a text-only Order.) (ejh) |
|
| 83 | 83
motion
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Tue 11/05 10:17 AM
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to68 MOTION to Dismiss4 Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim as Untimely and Prejudicial filed by Scott Traudt(Traudt, Scott) Event/text clarified, link added on 11/5/2024 (law) |
|
| Monday, November 04, 2024 | ||
| 82 | 82
order
Order on Motion for Hearing Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Mon 11/04 12:15 PM
ORDER DENYING14 Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery and32 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. No discovery schedule has been set, and Defendant Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") has filed a Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery and All Pending Discovery Motions until the court rules on its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 61.) Plaintiff has opposed that motion, which the court has taken under advisement. In these circumstances, Plaintiff has not shown "good cause" for expediting discovery. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Marino , 505 F. Supp. 3d 194, 209 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). Although he claims that "[i]f the discovery sought in this motion is not preserved immediately, [his] case may be irretrievably damaged," (Doc. 14 at 12), Plaintiff cites no evidence for his conclusory allegations that Defendants are intentionally destroying evidence or otherwise failing to preserve relevant material. See Tyler v. Peterson , 2022 WL 11629009, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2022) ("Parties to a lawsuit are duty bound to preserve relevant material, including electronically stored information ('ESI'), in anticipation of and during litigation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). Because Plaintiff's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing concerns an affidavit submitted by FINRA in opposition to his Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery, the court DENIES that motion as well as no evidentiary hearing is required or appropriate at this stage of the proceedings. Signed by Chief District Judge Christina Reiss on 11/4/2024. (This is a text-only Order.) (ejh) |
|
| Friday, November 01, 2024 | ||
| 81 | 81
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
Fri 11/01 12:00 PM
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT16 Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Answer to Amended Complaint by Plaintiff. All Defendants have timely responded to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief District Judge Christina Reiss on 11/1/2024. (This is a text-only Order.) (ejh) |
|