CASE BACKGROUND:
In the early 2010s, I spent most of my earnings purchasing hundreds of bitcoins. I eventually deposited them at BlockFi, Genesis, Celsius, Voyager, FTX, and related companies. These companies were all scams, with most CEOs, such as SBF, Alex Mashinsky, and Barry Silbert either convicted, on trial, or under investigation.
After the companies failed, I decided to exit the cryptocurrency industry by selling the remaining coins I had in my possession as well as the bankruptcy claims for a large loss.
The first deposit (see https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/genesis/, docket #50) from these sales was sent to my Wells Fargo accounts in February 2023.
When the initial million dollars arrived at the account, Gail Macker Carlino of Seashore Wealth Management (https://seashorewm.com), a Wells Fargo associate, told me that Wells Fargo was investigating my cryptocurrency involvement.
On March 12, 2023, she notified me that Wells Fargo closed 13 accounts owned by me, my brother, my businesses, my brother's business, my friends' business, and four credit card accounts.
Wells Fargo attempted to charge additional cancellation fees to me which I negotiated successfully to get dismissed.
One of the credit card accounts contained hundreds of dollars of Active Cash rewards points which had been earned through a promotional program they had advertised and which was the only reason I signed up for that card.
Wells Fargo seized the rewards points, claiming that when an account is closed for any reason, the rewards points are forfeit.
I paid the balance on the card for the valid purchases - except for the value of the rewards points - and notified Wells Fargo the remaining debt was invalid.
Wells Fargo charged off the debt and reported to credit agencies, dropping my credit score from approximately 780 to approximately 615.
I sent multiple demand letters to Wells Fargo offering a settlement and they declined.
See previous discussion: /SteveSokolowski/will-wells-fargo-sue-me
CAUSES OF ACTION:
Damages amount: $4,839.30 - the difference between 15 months of 22.24% APR and 0% APR, because I could not be approved to roll over this debt to a 0% APR card. I would have been approved if Wells Fargo had not reduced my credit score. Additionally requested $2,500 in damages in case primary damages are reduced - a conservative machine learning engineer salary of $125/hr for 20 hours of labor. Requested jurisdictional maximum of $12,000.
There are multiple causes of action listed, so that damages can still be awarded even if the judge finds one or two theories invalid:
False advertising: the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law provides for treble damages. Wells Fargo's advertising at https://creditcards.wellsfargo.com/active-cash-credit-card, which I relied upon, does not mention in a prominent position that the company may forfeit rewards unilaterally.
Negligent credit reporting: the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2) provides for penalties in the case that a person reports an inaccurate debt. The debt for the rewards points value was not valid and should not have been reported.
Unconscionable contract: by common law, this contract shocks the conscience. It is fundamentally unfair for a contract to be able to be ended by one side. The fact that many other banks engage in similar credit card contracts, leading to a lack of consumer choice and prohibiting me from selecting another bank, supports this argument.
OTHER NOTES:
I will not sign any settlement which contains a non-disparagement clause.
The mess I find myself in while attempting to turn the page out of cryptocurrencies (and an unrelated fraud case) has resulted in a 100% winrate so far in small claims cases mostly dealing with account freezes; I received awards against Angi, the City of Tallahassee, Coinbase, and Block Inc.
There is a mandatory arbitration clause which still allows litigation in small claims court, which is why I pursued this venue.
Unlike the previous market, now that litigation has commenced I will only post information available to the public (such as court orders) as updates; I will not discuss legal strategy or reveal any communications with Wells Fargo.
In my experience, small claims cases like this are usually settled within two months, or by October 2024.
CASE FILING:
RESOLUTION:
The market will resolve to YES if:
A judge awards a non-trivial amount to me for any reason
The judge orders the credit file expunged of Wells Fargo's reports
A settlement of a non-trivial amount is reached, even if the settlement amount is bound by a non-disclosure agreement.
The market will resolve to NO if:
The case is dismissed with prejudice
Litigation permanently terminates without an award or settlement
I die and the executor of my estate chooses not to continue the case
UPDATES:
2024-08-29: Pennsylvania apparently has a "tiered" system for court fees. The previous case was rejected because I paid the same amount as it cost to sue Coinbase. This case is requesting larger damages, and the filing was rejected. I mailed a new form that is identical to the old one, with the amount changed to be around $210 instead, along with their rejection note and requested for it to be refiled. This is expected to cause a 7 day delay but has no impact on the case's disposition.
2024-09-06:
These papers are self-explanatory and show the hearing dates.
2024-09-12:
This has not happened in any of the five previous cases. I will pay the fee and ask the sheriff to serve them in person.
2024-09-28:
It turns out that the reason that they could not be served was because they were now registered at a different address.
I paid them to serve the different address. They returned the check, saying that because it was a different address, the check had to be made out to a different entity that differed by one number, the amount was a few dollars more, and the case may be transferred to a new judge because the address is across the street. So, I resent a new check yet again and we'll see if this is rejected.
The frustrating part is that there does not appear to be a public explanation posted online as to why these fees differ, what they exactly are, and why the checks are required to be different and rewritten. I'll update again when this is finally served.
2024-10-29:
Wells Fargo decided to show up in person and defend the case.
A hearing was scheduled for November 14 at 2:00pm EST. I'll attend the hearing and provide an update after it concludes.
2024-11-01:
Their attorney entered his appearance and the docket is now updated at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-49201-CV-0000156-2024&dnh=MglQW8BeFkUK%2F0vUd%2BobZw%3D%3D.
2024-11-12:
The defendant will be attending the hearing/trial on November 14. I spent 25 hours this weekend preparing the case, and printed 220 pages of evidence.
I will be putting a rehearsal video through Gemini-1.5-Pro-002 to get its thoughts on what can be improved. This market has also fallen so far that I will be exercising my right to buy YES shares, given what I've learned about the evidence so far.
2024-11-13:
Wells Fargo removed the case to Federal court.
As a result, I'll be hiring an attorney and seeking higher damages given there is no jurisdictional limit. I probably will comment even less, now that the stakes are raised. As I will continue the case, the market has not been resolved either YES or NO.
The market will remain open and will be judged according to the outcome of the Federal case. The next action on the case should be expected to be in January 2025.
1,000
3.00Absent another court filing by MC, and another filing fee paid, this market resolves NO after only 25 more days from today.
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Thu 11/21 10:22 AM
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Stephen H. Sokolowski, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), without prejudice (Sokolowski, Stephen)
@FrederickNorris @KevinBlaw any chance you guys could lock up https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/will-i-block-a-total-of-five-users
Last I checked there only need to be 2 more.
@kopecs Steven doesn't want the truth because deep down. in places he doesn't talk about at parties, he wants me on this board -- he needs me on this board.
@nikki This is actually the wrong way to think about it. Cases aren't won by courtroom surprises. They are won by convincing the other side that you will be able to prove the case, and justice is on your side. And when the ability to do this is lacking, you can fall back on "well, I'm keeping my strategy a secret." In litigation, given the obligation to give discovery, surprise will rarely be able to be used effectively.
@nikki I wonder if this market will get SMC to register for Manifold and that this is somehow a strategy to expand the manifold user base.
@KevinBlaw He's given himself 30 days to regroup.
Imagine engaging in productive activity for 50 hours, instead of talking to a computer hoping to beat Wells Fargo out of money. It's absolutely daft.
If anyone is reading these comments in the future, you should treat these "lawyers'" comments like those of GPT-3.5, when Michael Cohen got sanctioned. It's almost as if they roll a die and spit out random cases and procedures, most of which are completely irrelevant, and some of which upon detailed examination support the opposite point of view.
@SteveSokolowski weren’t you going to hire an actual lawyer? What happened to that plan?
@KevinBlaw Does that mean that you're finally acknowledging that you aren't actually a lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about when you post these random procedures without reading them?
@SteveSokolowski I didn’t pass the bar but I know a little bit it. Enough to know Wells Fargo can legally close your shit.
@SteveSokolowski Why don't we judge by our relative confidence levels. Who has invested more mana in this market, you or me? Even though you could totally screw the NO traders with a dishonest resolution (or an N/A, which is what I think you're winding up for) I am putting my Mana where my mouth is. You? Not so much.
My confidence is 100% that you will never get a penny from WF, nor are you legally entitled to one, just because they broke up with you.
@SteveSokolowski No one here has claimed to be a lawyer. You claimed someone was a a WF lawyer coming on here to drag you to get you to drop the case. And if so, it worked!
@FrederickNorris No, I didn't state that. You should read my statements very carefully and look at their precise phrasing.
@SteveSokolowski I'm just watching the 30 days clock, seeing if you start a new case, or whether I will finally be drinking in the sweet, sweet Mana of victory.
I'm curious about the following: I can't find any case law on whether discussions with LLMs would be discoverable or admissable, no matter how much I try. Are there any regulations on this? Because I have at least 50 hours of conversations with them so far and run out of prompts on all three models I'm using nearly every day.
I don't want to end up in a ridiculous battle they take to the Supreme Court over whether "AI" is an attorney or something like that. That would clearly be something that other various interests care about but which I gain nothing from.
If the "armchair lawyers" want to do something rather than criticize me for things that I'm not going to talk about, perhaps they can research that.
@SteveSokolowski (1) Statements you make about the case are discoverable; (2) You do not have attorney-client privilege with your computer or software programs.
There is nothing whatsoever confusing about this. You'd have to turn over all of your statements about the case.
@KevinBlaw Bruh, you don't even know. He has some genius litigation strategy that he can't discuss here that is going to net him 5 figures because Wells Fargo canceled his account, which they reserved the right to do in advance. He's not telling you how to do it for free. WF rekt.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55804774/Sokolowski_v_Wells_Fargo_Bank,_NA
A link to the federal docket. Answer is due December 19th. However, I would expect that they are going to 12(b)(6) his ass having run through Gemini-2.5-Elite-123 that's what I would do. But there's a chance of a sua sponte remand.
@KevinBlaw I dismissed this case without prejudice.
The market does not meet either resolution criteria at this time.
@SteveSokolowski You dismissing the case because the writing was on the wall is not a good faith resolution here. You withdrew the case because you were going to lose. Period. The end.
@SteveSokolowski It is unfair to the traders of this market not to resolve NO, unless you are going to refile in Federal Court in 30 days. As you said.
@Ziddletwix Steven says he dismissed the case without prejudice. He cannot re-file in state court without getting in big trouble. Hence, under what he promised to me, he has 30 days to refile in federal court (paying another filing fee) or else he has to resolve NO.
That link works to see the docket without a PACER account, but not the underlying documents.
@FrederickNorris Ah, good point. Let's start a clock, then, and see what the status is 30 days from now. On that day, if the market still has not resolved, because I said "30 days," I'll resolve it to NO and then someone else can create a new market if they choose.
Quite a bit of the legal advice from armchair lawyers here is questionable. I would advise some of them to read actual cases regarding some of the topics they are discussing.
@SteveSokolowski @FrederickNorris I can't parse what this means. Are you going to re-file or not? If you are going to refile, just say so. I would take an armchair lawyer over the way you handled this case, starting from not being able to serve them correctly.
@SteveSokolowski Try to think about what makes sense. Would a bank leave itself open to endless lawsuits just for closing an account, or declining to extend credit? Obv not. They have lawyers writing these agreements in the first place.
Any time part of your claim involves showing a contract is unconscionable, you know you're in trouble.
This is not armchair lawyering, this is believing the banks are NOT leaving themselves open to attack by people in your position. I'm sorry for your troubles, truly. But Wells Fargo is not the scapegoat for them.
@FrederickNorris It means that I'm continuing to follow what I said earlier in the market - I'm only stating the facts of the case that anyone can see on the docket and not litigation strategy.
You will see what happens as it happens, and I will resolve the market (or not) according to the original criteria.
@benjaminIkuta all reasonable questions that’s won’t get a satisfactory answer. I think he just likes the attention.