Olteanu v. Gonzales, 3:24-cv-02347

Plaintiff Andreea Melissa Olteanu alleged that multiple defendants, including her mother, financial institutions, and others, engaged in a scheme to siphon funds from the Michael & Anca Olteanu Trust, of which plaintiff was the primary beneficiary.
The allegations included embezzlement, wire and mail fraud, money laundering, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with asserted links to financial distress and even wrongful death.
This was the latest in a series of related actions filed in multiple jurisdictions (federal and state courts) regarding the same nucleus of facts; previous attempts were dismissed or remain pending.
Defendants Merrill Lynch and Eric Gonzales moved to compel arbitration based on alleged agreements, or otherwise to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim.
The Court had previously dismissed earlier versions of the complaint, granting Olteanu leave to amend to cure deficiencies. The Second Amended Complaint was the subject of this ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to Compel Arbitration	Defendants are not entitled to arbitrate; no valid agreement shown	Valid arbitration agreement exists; case should be compelled to arbitration	Motion to compel arbitration denied; defendants failed to meet burden.
Pleading Standard for Pro Se	Pro se filings should be liberally construed	Liberal standard shouldn't apply; complaint likely ghostwritten by an attorney	Liberal pro se standard applied; lacking proof of ghostwriting.
Adequacy of Fraud-Based Allegations	Complaint pleads sufficient factual allegations to state a claim	Allegations are conclusory, lacking specific facts, and fail Rule 8/9 standards	Complaint fails to meet plausibility and particularity requirements.
Leave to Amend	Plaintiff should be allowed additional amendment	Further amendment would be futile; prior attempts failed to cure deficiencies	Dismissal without leave to amend granted; further amendment futile.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement under Rule 8)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179 (conclusory allegations insufficient to state claim)
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (fraud claims must meet Rule 9(b) particularity)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se pleadings must still state plausible claim for relief)