KEITH P. SEQUEIRA v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1995-16T1
KEITH P. SEQUEIRA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________________
Argued May 9, 2018 – Decided June 18, 2018
Before Judges Koblitz, Manahan, and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No.
L-3393-14.
Keith P. Sequeira, appellant, argued the cause
pro se.
David W. Schmidt argued the cause for
respondent (Lubiner, Schmidt & Palumbo, LLC,
attorneys; David W. Schmidt, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Keith Sequeira appeals from orders of the trial
court administratively dismissing his complaint against defendant
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, due to lack of prosecution per Rule
1:13-7 for failure to effectuate process in a timely manner and
denying reinstatement of the complaint for failure to demonstrate
"good cause." We affirm.
Sequeira is a former financial advisor, hired by Wells Fargo's
predecessor firm in 1998, who was licensed and regulated by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In 2008,
Sequeira filed a plenary action against numerous defendants,
including two of Wells Fargo's predecessor firms, alleging
discrimination and unlawful retaliation in violation of the Law
Against Discrimination,
N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Sequeira's
complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and we affirmed on appeal.
Sequeira v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, No. A-0734-10 (App. Div.
Oct. 9, 2014) (slip op. at 1-2) (Sequeira I). Sequeira filed a
second action against the same defendants in 2012, which was again
dismissed with prejudice. We affirmed on appeal. Sequeira v.
Wells Fargo & Co., No. A-3239-13 (App. Div. Feb. 24, 2016)
(Sequeira II).
On August 5, 2014, a FINRA arbitration proceeding was
instituted by Wells Fargo against Sequeira. The arbitrators
awarded Wells Fargo $47,462.56 in compensatory damages and $30,000
in attorneys' fees. On September 4, 2014, Sequeira filed an action
2 A-1995-16T1
naming Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, and others seeking to vacate the
arbitration award (Sequeira III).1
In January 2015, after there was no responsive pleading to
the complaint filed and no entry of default sought, a notice of
dismissal was issued pursuant to Rule 1:13-7(a). Pursuant to the
notice, the complaint was administratively dismissed on March 27,
2015.
Thereafter, Sequeira filed a motion to extend time to file,
to serve an amended complaint and to extend discovery. On April
10, 2015, the judge denied Sequeira's motion, noting the complaint
was dismissed on March 27, 2015, for lack of prosecution. Sequeira
filed a motion for reconsideration and for reinstatement of the
case to the active trial list. The motion was denied on July 10,
2015.
Sequeira served the complaint for Sequeira III on defendant
Wells Fargo in August 2016. Thereafter, Sequeira filed a motion
to reinstate the complaint, alleging he had cured the defect which
led to the dismissal.
In a written statement of reasons, the judge denied Sequeira's
motion to reinstate for failure to provide good cause or
exceptional circumstances for his failure to prosecute and serve
1
The other defendants in this matter were dismissed by
stipulation prior to this action.
3 A-1995-16T1
the complaint. On November 7, 2016, Sequeira filed another motion
to reinstate the complaint. In a written statement of reasons,
the judge denied Sequeira's motion. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Sequeira raises the following points:
POINT I
PLAINTIFF FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL. JUDGE
O'BRIEN WAS DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION. HIS
ORDERS DISMISSING SEQUEIRA III WERE VOID.
POINT II
JUDGE O'BRIEN ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY
DISMISSING SEQUEIRA III PURSUANT TO R. 1:13-
7.
POINT III
JUDGE O'BRIEN ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY
REPEATEDLY REFUSING TO REINSTATE SEQUEIRA III.
POINT IV
JUDGE O'BRIEN AND THIS COURT IMPERMISSIBLY
DISREGARDED ATALESE.[2]
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and
conclude that they lack sufficient merit to warrant consideration
2
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., LP,
219 N.J. 430 (2014). In
Atalese, our Supreme Court considered the enforceability of an
arbitration agreement that did not provide notice to the consumer
that, by signing the agreement, she would be forfeiting her right
to relief in a judicial forum. Id. at 435-36. This argument is
not properly before us for review as enforceability of the
arbitration award was relief sought in the complaint that was not
reinstated.
4 A-1995-16T1
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the
following.
"Our review of an order denying reinstatement of a complaint
dismissed for lack of prosecution proceeds under an abuse of
discretion standard." Baskett v. Kwokleung Cheung,
422 N.J. Super.
377, 382 (App. Div. 2011). We "decline[] to interfere with [such]
matter of discretion unless it appears that an injustice has been
done." St. James AME Dev. Corp. v. City of Jersey City,
403 N.J.
Super. 480, 484 (App. Div. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting
Cooper v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
391 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div.
2007)).
In consideration of our standard of review in light of the
pattern of non-conformance by Sequeira with our rules of court and
court orders, we discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of
the reinstatement of the complaint. We affirm substantially for
the reasons stated in Judge O'Brien's thorough written opinions.
Affirmed.
5 A-1995-16T1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
