Roling

Roling v. E TRADE SECURITIES, LLC

Good Law
756 F. Supp. 2d 1179·2010 WL 4916401·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123714
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 22, 2010C 10-0488 MHPCalifornia6,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiffs Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater brought this putative class action against E*Trade Securities LLC (“E*Trade”) alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California Civil Code sections 1671 and 17200 et seq. Now before the court are E*Trade’s motion to transfer venue and motion to dismiss. Having considered the parties submissions and arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

E* Trade is an online broker-dealer of stocks and securities. In 1999 and 2006, respectively, Rolling and Landvater each opened and deposited $1,000 into an E*Trade brokerage account. Docket No. 14 (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)) ¶¶ 16, 25. Upon activation, plaintiffs entered into the “Brokerage Customer Agreement,” which provided that plaintiffs “agree to pay brokerage commissions, charges and other fees set forth in E*TRADE Securities’ then-current fee schedule .... ” Id., Exh. A (Brokerage Agreement) § 4(b). The brokerage agreement further stated that “a schedule of the current fees and commission is available on the E*TRADE Securities Web site.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that it…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.