An irreverent Wall Street Blog
Edward Jones Sued for $15 Million Over Book of Business
May 17, 2022
In "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," T.S. Eliot laments: "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons." In a recent federal lawsuit involving a $15 million claim against Edward Jones, a District Court laments that the Plaintiff failed to measure out his Complaint in numbered paragraphs or different counts. Alas, the Court lacks the lilting prose of the poet.
2021 Pro Se Complaint MDFL
On November 17, 2021, Brandon L. Johnson filed a Pro Se Complaint and Request for Injunction against Edward D. Jones & Co. L.P. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ("MDFL").
https://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/JohnsonComplaintMDFL211117.pdf In addition to naming Edward D. Jones as a Defendant, Plaintiff Johnson, acting in a pro se capacity, added Dean J. Landsman, David Jones, Dan Coyle, Adam M. benAbram, and Dan Sammons -- all the individuals were affiliated with Edward Jones. On the
https://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/JohnsonComplaintMDFL211117.pdf In addition to naming Edward D. Jones as a Defendant, Plaintiff Johnson, acting in a pro se capacity, added Dean J. Landsman, David Jones, Dan Coyle, Adam M. benAbram, and Dan Sammons -- all the individuals were affiliated with Edward Jones. On the
So . . . when you're dealing with an individual Plaintiff who is representing himself without benefit of a lawyer, the pleadings filed with the court aren't always polished. Frankly, that's okay. Our legal system makes lots of allowances for pro se parties, as should be the case given the costs of hiring lawyers. On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Johnson filed an Amended Pro Se Complaint and Request for Injunction.3. The Amount in ControversyThe amount in controversy -- the amount the plaintiff claims the defendant owes or the amount at stake -- is more than $75,000, not counting interest and costs of court, because (explain):$15,000,000: Value of Book of Business Lost to Fraud
Motion to Dismiss
In response to Plaintiff Johnson's filings, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and to Compel Arbitration, which he opposed. Brandon L. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Dean J. Landsman, et al., Defendants (Order, MDFL, 21-CV-2704 / May 10, 2022) https://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/JohnsonOpMDFL220510.pdf In tackling the Motion before it, MDFL offers this synopsis:
Mr. Johnson filed this action against his prior employer, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. ("Edward Jones"), and several "financial advisors," alleging that Edward Jones violated various securities regulations and statutes. (Doc. 1.) He then filed an amended complaint and two purported emergency motions for a preliminary injunction, which were denied. (Docs. 5, 6, 8, 13, 14.) In his amended complaint, Mr. Johnson presents a three-page "Statement of Claim," which does not include numbered paragraphs, separate his various claims into different counts, or specify which defendants the claims are raised against. (Doc. 5 at 8-10.)Essentially, Mr. Johnson alleges that Edward Jones "failed to disclose material facts about internal asset sales to new Edward Jones Financial Advisors (FA) including [him]." (Id. at 8.) More specifically, Mr. Johnson alleges that Edward Jones "used high pressure sales techniques . . . to sell [him] a $5,000,000 book of business," which Edward Jones "knew was statistically likely to fail." (Id.) According to Mr. Johnson, "Edward Jones Corporate Office and Edward Jones Management team analyzes these investments prior to sale, they willingly choose to withhold critical facts in the process of material misrepresentation from the purchaser ([Mr. Johnson]) of the quality of these assets," and "this misconduct allowed Edward Jones HQ, EJ leaders, and Edward Jones senior Financial Advisors to profit off of withholding information at the time of sale." (Id. at 8-9.) Mr. Johnson further alleges that Edward Jones "has the complete ability to make or break these investments, by withholding support, withholding staffing, and withholding additional resources . . . as forms of punishment or retribution in certain cases," and that Edward Jones "has incentive for these investments to fail, because when the investment fails, they terminate the new employee, and all assets and books of business go back to Edward Jones." (Id. at 9.)Although the "Statement of Claim" does not specify the cause of action Mr. Johnson seeks to bring, elsewhere in his amended complaint Mr. Johnson states that "[t]hrough this misconduct, [Edward Jones] violates e.C.F.R. - Title 17 - Chapter 2, S.E.C. Part 240 - General Rules and Regulations, S.E.C. act of 1934, 240, 10-b-5 (a)(b)(c). Section 17(a) of the Securities Act - 15 U.S.C., 17q(a). 941. 18 U.S.C. 1343." (Id. at 3.) Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint for several reasons, including that it fails to "articulate a coherent claim pursuant to the requirements" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 16 at 1.) They also contend that Mr. Johnson's claims are subject to arbitration. (Id. at 7-12.) Mr. Johnson has responded in opposition. (Doc. 23.)
at Pages 1 - 3 of the MDFL Order
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin ?
Courts sort of bend over backwards for pro se litigants. After all, there is that fundamental aspect of our democracy that everyone is entitled to their day in court. That being said, MDFL pretty much telegraphed where it was heading with the disposition of Johnson's case, as was evident from this initial jab:
[I]n his amended complaint, Mr. Johnson presents a three-page "Statement of Claim," which does not include numbered paragraphs, separate his various claims into different counts, or specify which defendants the claims are raised against. (Doc. 5 at 8-10.)
In "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," T.S. Eliot laments about "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons." In similar fashion MDFL laments that Johnson has not measured out his Complaint in numbered paragraphs or different counts. Alas, the Court lacks the moving prose of the poet but, regardless, the admonition comes through. One can only imagine how the Court's initial observations will come to bear on the question of whether pro se Plaintiff Johnson managed to "articulate a coherent claim." Anyone up for a wager?
And all bets down and all hands off the table!
Shotgun Pleading
The very first numbered portion of the MDFL Order (a Roman Numeral "I" at that) states "The amended complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading." at Page 3 of the MDFL Order. When a court's initial impression of your pleading is that it's a shotgun complaint, that doesn't auger well for what will likely come afterwards. As if there was any doubt, consider the first paragraph immediately following the Roman Numeral I heading:
Ouch and Ouch!!Upon review of Mr. Johnson's amended complaint, the operative pleading fails to notify Defendants of the claims against them or the grounds on which those claims rest. Accordingly, the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading that is due to be dismissed.
As to why the Court deemed Johnson's Pro Se Complaint to be too scatter-shot a pleading, we are offered, in part, this dissection:
[F]irst, Mr. Johnson presents all his claims in a three-page "Statement of Claim," which includes factual allegations and legal conclusions. (Doc. 5 at 8-10.) That statement does not "state [Mr. Johnson's] claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Nor does it identify any cause of action, although elsewhere in his pleading Mr. Johnson alleges that Edward Jones has violated "e.C.F.R. - Title 17 - Chapter 2, S.E.C. Part 240 - General Rules and Regulations, S.E.C. act of 1934, 240, 10-b-5 (a)(b)(c). Section 17(a) of the Securities Act - 15 U.S.C., 17q(a). 941. 18 U.S.C. 1343." (Doc. 5 at 3.) Mr. Johnson has also filed documents relating to a potential discrimination claim (Docs. 23-1, 24), and alleges that "Edward Jones is also still in possession of over $100,000+ of personal property they illegally stole from [him]" from a listed address (Doc. 5 at 4). Mr. Johnson thus appears to bring several causes of action, yet he does not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into distinct counts. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.The pleading further combines multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendant is responsible for which act. See id. Mr. Johnson does not allege that any of the individual defendants violated the above regulations and statutes, and no factual allegations as to a specific individual defendant are included in his "Statement of Claim." (Doc. 5 at 3, 8-10.) Notwithstanding, Mr. Johnson alleges that "Edward Jones Corporate Office and Edward Jones Management team analyzes . . . investments prior to sale, they willingly choose to withhold critical facts in the process of material misrepresentation from the purchaser ([Mr. Johnson]) of the quality of these assets," and that "this misconduct allowed Edward Jones HQ, EJ leaders, and Edward Jones senior Financial Advisors to profit off of withholding information at the time of sale." (Id. at 8-9.) Upon review, however, it is unclear whether Mr. Johnson is alleging that each of the individual defendants analyzed the investments and made material misrepresentations to him or others. At bottom, it is unclear what conduct he is alleging the individual defendants engaged in to support his claims against them.
at Pages 4 - 5 of the MDFL Order
In the Event of a Second Amended Complaint
Having effectively knocked Johnson to the canvass, the Court gets in one more glancing blow when it notes that:
Footnote 4: If Mr. Johnson decides to file a second amended complaint and opposes a subsequent motion to compel arbitration, he is directed to respond to Defendants' contention that "[t]he Employment Agreement executed by Plaintiff . . . delegated threshold issues of arbitrability to the FINRA arbitrators." (Doc. 16 at 10); see Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 529 (2019). The Court cautions Mr. Johnson that he may be liable to pay, among other things, attorney's fees and other associated costs in actions against any or all of the defendants he names in this complaint or other litigation.
In disposing of the matters before it, MDFL:
- granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss "to the extent that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading;" and
- denied without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss subject to renewal in the event that Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint.