Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Brandon T. Self v. Chase Bank
August 24, 2011
BRANDON T. SELF,
CHASE BANK, N.A., DEFENDANT. BOB PERRY,
CHASE BANK, N.A., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring these related actions. Pending before the court in both cases are defendant's motions to dismiss (Doc. 26 in case no. CIV S-10-2199-FCD-CMK and Doc. 25 in case no. CIV S-10-2200-FCD-CMK).*fn1
Plaintiffs initiated these related actions with nearly identical complaints, each alleging fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs raise the following claims in both actions:
Count I Violation of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Count II Securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 6801.
Count III Securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
Count IV Violation of the Trust Indenture Act.
Count V Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Count VI Criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count VII Rescission.
Plaintiffs allege that they obtained lines of credit through a "Consumer Credit Application" offered by defendant. According to plaintiffs, defendant engaged in unspecified "untruth[s] or omissions." Plaintiffs also claim that defendant purchased "for plaintiff's account" an unknown number of shares in Fidelity funds at an unspecified price. Plaintiffs each claim that "defendants wrongfully exercised control and dominion over plaintiff's brokerage account in violation of express conditions given to defendants at the time that the account was opened." Plaintiffs do not specify what these "express conditions" were. Plaintiffs claim that, through the "instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails, and the facilities of National Securities Exchanges," defendant defrauded them by manipulating their accounts with "excessive sell and buy orders in a manner disproportionate to its size, character, and the objectives of the instructions of plaintiff[s], bought and sold securities within short period of time, switched securities from one to another without any investment justification other than to generate brokerage commissions. . . ." Plaintiffs claim that defendant's conduct endangered their investments. They also assert that defendant's conduct was not "suitable to plaintiffs['] purchasing objectives, financial situation, and needs." Plaintiffs do not specify what their objectives and needs were. Plaintiffs also contend that defendant's written documentation related to the investment offers failed to disclose that defendant was very profitable and that defendant "encumbered the said fund and had accounts receivable of in excess of accounts payable and other debts. . . ."
A. Defendant's Motions to ...
Buy This Entire Record For