Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-808 - HARTZMAN v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-808 - HARTZMAN v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC
March 19, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 03/19/2015. Plaintiff has shown a basis to permit (at least in part) his proposed further amendment of his Amended Complaint, but has failed to show any basis for his Motion to Seal or his Motions to Compel. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 24) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that, on or before April 1, 2015, Plaintiff shall file his proposed Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 24-1) as a Second Amended Complaint, but without the addition of John Stumpf or Robert Steel as Defendants or the inclusion of any causes of action beyond his claim of retaliation related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Plaintiff's filing of a Second Amended Complaint will render moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 19). FURTHER that, if Plaintiff timely files his Second Amended Complaint as outlined above, Defendant shall, on or before April 20, 2015, respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. FURTHER that the Clerk shall strike the unredacted version of the Sanchez Report (Docket Entry 26) and that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Document (Docket Entry 22) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Docket Entries 31, 32) are DENIED.(Taylor, Abby) .
February 17, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 02/17/2016. For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) is DISMISSED as to all claims except for his claim for retaliation under Sarbanes-Oxley, specifically as it relates to his raising of concerns regarding whether government loans were properly disclosed in Wells Fargo's SEC filings from 2008 and 2009.(Taylor, Abby)
July 12, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 07/12/2017, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) is DENIED, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 124) is GRANTED, and that this case is DISMISSED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing before Summary Judgment Deadline (Doc. 105) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Defendant's Motion for Dismissal for Non-Compliance with Court Order (Doc. 158) is DENIED AS MOOT. A judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be entered contemporaneously herewith.(Taylor, Abby)