Clark v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Plaintiff: Jason R. Clark
Defendant: Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Case Number: 1:2022cv03015
Filed: November 21, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Presiding Judge: S Kato Crews
Referring Judge: Charlotte N Sweeney
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Setting Telephonic Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. The Telephonic Scheduling Conference is set for 3/2/2023 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. The Magistrate Judge #3 Consent Form is due by 2/24/2023.Counsel and Plaintiff are directed to call in for this Telephonic Scheduling Conference using the dial-in information:CONFERENCE CALL LINE: (888) 251-2909ACCESS CODE: 5662814#SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 1/18/2023. Text Only Entry (skclc2).
January 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER regarding Defendant's request in its #7 Motion to Convert, raising two issues the Court should address in a status conference, i.e., jurisdiction and proper service.1. Whether the federal court has jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate rather than a complaint. However, Defendant's argument is a distinction without a difference for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See Dodson Intl. Parts, Inc. v. Williams Intl. Co. LLC, 12 F. 4th 1212, 1228 (10th Cir. 2021) (even though plaintiff failed to correctly file a pleading as a motion to confirm, plaintiff clearly stated its intention and federal courts adopt a liberal view ''on what types of motion, filings, or pleadings'' are equivalent to a motion to confirm); Conrad v. Phone Directories Co., Inc., 585 F.3d 1376, 1385 (10th Cir. 2009) (''The goal of this inquiry is to determine whether it is plainly apparent from the four corners of the motion that the movant seeks only the relief provided for in the FAA...''); cf. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Avcorp Indus., Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1195 (D. Kan. 2013) (''[Section 6 of the FAA] makes clear that a request to vacate or affirm an arbitration award shall be made in the form of a motionnot in the form of a complaint or other pleading''); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(6)(B) (the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the extent the FAA does not provide its own procedure). To that end, in considering the Court's obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate could be easily and liberally construed as a ''Complaint.'' Regardless, Defendant has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), thus, this issue is improperly before the Court as currently postured.2. Defendant also seems to raise whether personal service was proper on it since Plaintiff served the California attorney who represented Defendant in the underlying arbitration. On the one hand, Defendant states it ''does not wish to require a summons to be issued and is willing to waive the same[,]'' and yet, it hasn't done so. On the other hand, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Convert which fails to clearly indicate whether it is raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Indeed, it appears Defendant waived this argument with its pre-answer Motion to Convert; Defendant has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or (5). See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Oaklawn Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 175 (10th Cir. 1992) (''If a party files a pre-answer motion and fails to assert the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction... he waives that defense.'') (cleaned up).Therefore, the Motion to Convert is DENIED. Defendant shall promptly file an appropriate motion to the extent it continues to believe this Court lacks jurisdiction. And if Defendant does not concede it waived the personal jurisdiction or service of process issue by filing the Motion to Convert, it shall either promptly waive the same as it offered in its Motion to Convert or file an appropriate motion.Accordingly, the Court will issue a date setting a scheduling conference on this matter. ORDERED: The parties are not required to confer and prepare a proposed scheduling order. Instead, at the Scheduling Conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss their views on the extent of discovery necessary for this case, if any, or a proposed briefing schedule should either side feel a period of discovery is not required.SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 1/18/2023. Text Only Entry (skclc2).
December 28, 2022 Filing 9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Robyn C. Crowther on behalf of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.Attorney Robyn C. Crowther added to party Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.(pty:dft) (Crowther, Robyn)
December 22, 2022 Filing 8 MEMORANDUM regarding #7 MOTION for Hearing/Conference Motion to Convert Scheduling Conference to Status Conference and Notice of Attempt to Confer Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1. Motion #7 is referred to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 12/22/2022. Text Only Entry (cnssec.) Modified on 12/22/2022 memo mailed to plaintiff per chambers. (sphil, ).
December 21, 2022 Filing 7 MOTION for Hearing/Conference Motion to Convert Scheduling Conference to Status Conference and Notice of Attempt to Confer Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 by Defendant Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.. (Wells, Hilary)
December 21, 2022 Filing 6 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance of Hilary D. Wells by Hilary Dawn Wells on behalf of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.Attorney Hilary Dawn Wells added to party Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.(pty:dft) (Wells, Hilary)
December 7, 2022 Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT/RETURN of Service upon Robyn Crowther on 12/1/2022, filed by Plaintiff Jason R. Clark (sphil, )
November 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews for all motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions, and (5) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 11/22/2022. Text Only Entry (cnssec.)
November 21, 2022 Filing 3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). No Summons Issued. (jcharl, )
November 21, 2022 Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney and drawn to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. Text Only Entry. (jcharl, )
November 21, 2022 Filing 1 MOTION FOR/TO: VACATE FINRA Award and Judgement for FINRA Arbitration Case #21-02439 Jason R. Clark/Clark Brothers Investments/CBI v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Date of FINRA Arbitration Hearing September 8-9, 2022, DENVER, CO with FINRA Award issued September 19, 2022, DENVER, CO. against Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. Filing Fee: $402.00 Receipt Number: COX105159, filed by Jason R. Clark. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jcharl, ) Modified on 11/21/2022 (jcharl, ).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clark v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jason R. Clark
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Represented By: Hilary Dawn Wells
Represented By: Robyn C. Crowther
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?