This is the second action filed by Plaintiff based on the same set of factual allegations. In January 2005, Plaintiff received an inheritance comprised of investments managed by Defendant Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC ("WFCS").Plaintiff met with WFCS representatives, including Defendant Angie Ostendarp, a financial advisor who later worked with Plaintiff on his WFCS accounts and investments. On August 12, 2013, WFCS sent a letter to Plaintiff terminating the customer account relationship. The letter was signed by Defendant Mike Quimby, a former WFCS representative.On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff initiated a proceeding before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") against WFCS asserting claims for fraud, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, RICO violations, and negligence. In the FINRA proceeding, Plaintiff sought to recover damages from WFCS, Ostendarp, and Quimby, alleging that Plaintiff did not understand how his assets were being invested, did not receive copies of certain documents, became obligated on a loan without his consent, and WFCS did not properly manage his assets. After a July 2016 hearing, a FINRA arbitration panel ordered WFCS to pay Plaintiff $73,784.34 in damages plus attorney’s fees.On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed his pro se complaint against Wells Fargo Advisors, Ostendarp, Quimby, and Andy Tullis (the "First Federal Action"). See Wilkinson v. Wells Fargo Advisors et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00755. Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint was the same set of allegations he submitted to FINRA. On February 15, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint in the First Federal Action. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiff failed to allege any of the defendants were state actors. The Court further concluded that the remainder of Plaintiff’s complaint failed to alert the Court to any potential claim for relief.On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., WFCS, Ostendarp, Quimby, FINRA, and Place and Hanley, LLC in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Certain Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina based on diversity jurisdiction. The complaint is difficult to comprehend and does not identify specific claims. The complaint does state, however, that it is "an amendment AND an addendum to previously filed complaints: Federal Court and FINRA." (Doc. No. 1-1, at 34.) In addition, Plaintiff makes the same allegations that he made in the FINRA proceeding and the First Federal Action, namely: (1) Plaintiff did not understand his investments or conversations with WFCS; (2) Plaintiff did not receive copies of certain documents; (3) Plaintiff became obligated on four loans without his consent; and (4) WFCS mismanaged funds in his investment account.On December 6, 2019, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., WFCS, Ostendarp, and Quimby (the “Wells Fargo Defendants”) filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8, 10(b), and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 11.) In the five-month period since the Wells Fargo Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed twelve different motions.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is based on the same series of transactions and occurrences as his complaint in the First Federal Action and the FINRA arbitration -- namely, his dealings with WFCS and its representatives regarding Plaintiff’s account and investments. As the claims, allegations, and issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint either were adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in the prior FINRA arbitration and the First Federal Action, Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is the quintessential shotgun pleading. Plaintiff complains of a grand criminal scheme, asserting that his rights and the rights of 3.5 million others “must be defended and preserved over the banking industries [sic] communistic criminal capitalistic enterprises.” (Doc. No. 1-1, at 13.) The Complaint consists of a series of handwritten and typewritten pages generally asserting that banks, including Wells Fargo, steal money from people, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff also lists numerous civil and criminal statutes that he believes have been violated. Other than stating that “[t]his is a 42USC@1983 [sic] Civil Rights Complaint,” “[t]his is a Criminal Complaint,” and “[t]his is a Constitutional Complaint,” it is entirely unclear what claims Plaintiff attempts to assert, and the Court is unable to discern any potential claims for relief. Accordingly, dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint is also warranted for failure to comply with Rule 8.
The motion states that Plaintiff "finally found Randall Place" and seeks to include "Defendants previously not served by oversight," including FINRA, Randall Place, and Place and Hanley, LLC. While FINRA and Place and Hanley, LLC were named as original Defendants, Randall Place was not. (Doc. No. 1-1, at 3.) Thus, the Court construes the motion as one to amend the complaint to add Randall Place as a Defendant. Randall Place of Place and Hanley, LLC appears to be the lawyer who represented Plaintiff in the FINRA arbitration. The complaint is devoid of any factual allegations to support a potential claim against Randall Place or Place and Hanley, LLC. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend, (Doc. No. 19), as futile.
E. Motion to Serve Sarah Hanley with Complaint (Doc. No. 28)It is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks through this motion. The motion suggests that Sarah Hanley is Randall Place’s wife. Hanley is not a Defendant in this case and there does not appear to be any allegations in the complaint regarding Hanley. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to serve Sarah Hanley with the complaint, (Doc. No. 28), is denied.
Wilkinson, acting pro se, appealed the WDNC Order to the 4Cir, which affirmed the lower court's judgment and denied Wilkinson’s motions:
Andrew Elliott Wilkinson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FINRA; Place and Hanley, LCC, Defendants - Appellees,
Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, d/b/a Wells Fargo Advisors; Angie Ostendarp; Mike Quimby; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants (Opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("4Cir"), No. 22-1090 / January 26, 2023)
FINRA Censures and Fines Raymond James for 1.85 Million Inaccurate Customer Confirmations from 2014 to 2022
In the Matter of Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Respondent (FINRA AWC)