Rader v. Sharebuilder Corporation
1:10-cv-00398
| D. Del. | Mar 24, 2011Background
- Rader, pro se plaintiff, filed four lawsuits in this district relating to a January 2009 ShareBuilder account opening and funding issues.
- This action (Rader IV) challenges a Settlement Letter from ShareBuilder offering to settle all claims for $125,000, dated May 6, 2010 with a deadline of May 21, 2010.
- Defendants moved to dismiss this case (D.I. 11) and Rader moved for summary judgment (D.I. 14); Rader also sought recusal of the judge and defense counsel (D.I. 25).
- The court previously stayed proceedings in related Rader actions and later granted ShareBuilder’s motion to dismiss on multiple grounds; summary judgment was denied for Rader here.
- The court analyzed FRE 408, the concept of absolute privilege, and claims sounding in conspiracy, extortion/blackmail, constitutional rights, and recusal, ultimately dismissing all claims and denying recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRE 408 and absolute privilege bar claims | Rader contends settlement letter is improper and extortionate | ShareBuilder argues FRE 408 and privilege protect settlement communications | FRE 408 and privilege do not compel dismissal |
| Whether a civil conspiracy to defraud exists | Rader alleges Settlement Letter defrauded him | No underlying actionable wrong; no damages shown | Conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of actionable underlying wrong and damages |
| Whether blackmail/extortion are civil causes of action | Settlement letter amounts to civil extortion | Civil extortion/blackmail not recognized as civil causes of action | Claims dismissed as such actions are not cognizable civil claims |
| Whether constitutional claims against private actors survive | Rader asserts due process and takings violations by ShareBuilder | Constitutional rights apply to state action only | Constitutional claims dismissed for lack of government action |
| Whether recusal is warranted | Rader seeks recusal based on alleged ex parte communications | No ex parte communications; no grounds for recusal | Recusal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Huang, 610 A.2d 1341 (Del. 1992) (absolute privilege in judicial proceedings)
- Williams v. First National Bank, 216 U.S. 582 (Sup. Ct. 1910) (settlement of disputes favored by policy)
- Hemstreet v. Spiegel, Inc., 851 F.2d 348 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (public policy favoring settlement; policy against extensive litigation)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands Inc., 61 F.Supp.2d 102 (D. Del. 1996) (public policy favoring settlement of disputes)
- Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467 (Del. 1992) (elements of fraud in Delaware)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not mere allegations)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact; reasonable jury could return a verdict)