SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Civil Action No. ______________________

DAVID “RYAN” MCCAIGUE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOENCH WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC; 

and BRIAN H. DOENCH, an individual,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff DAVID “RYAN” MCCAIGUE, an individual (“Plaintiff” or “McCaigue”); by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Damages against Defendants DOENCH 

WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC (“DWM”); and BRIAN H. DOENCH (“Defendant” or 

“Doench”) (together DWM and Doench are “Defendants”), and states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. In November 2014, Plaintiff hired Defendant as an investment adviser to manage 

Plaintiff’s Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”).

2. Between November 2014 and May 2018, Plaintiff contributed a total of $345,511.55 

in principal to his IRA.

3. Notwithstanding the trust placed with him by Plaintiff, Defendant breached the

fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiff and negligently mismanaged the IRA.

4. As of April 2020, Plaintiff’s IRA balance had dwindled to $147,194.70.

5. Consequently, Plaintiff seeks entry of a final judgment awarding Plaintiff damages, 

together with interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 12
- 2 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff DAVID “RYAN” MCCAIGUE (“Plaintiff” or “McCaigue”) is an individual 

domiciled in Broward County, Florida, is a citizen of Florida, and is sui juris. 

7. Defendant DOENCH WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC (“DWM”) maintains an 

office in, and conducts business from, 1712 Mattox Court, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903. DWM was 

founded, owned, operated, and is controlled by Defendant Doench.

8. Defendant BRIAN H. DOENCH (“Doench” or “Defendant”) is an individual 

domiciled in Charlottesville, Virginia, is a citizen of Virginia, and is sui juris.

9. Upon information and belief, DWM is wholly owned, operated, and entirely 

dominated by Doench, who operates the businesses as its Manager while ignoring all corporate 

formalities and using the company as a mere instrumentality for his personal interests in an attempt 

to shield himself from personal liability for his wrongful conduct. The company does not exist 

separate or apart from Doench and merely served as a pass-through entity from which Doench takes

all profits. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and 

costs and is between citizens of different States.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because at all times material

hereto: (a) Defendants conducted business within this District in Broward County, Florida; and (b) all 

of Defendants’ conduct, actions, and inactions that gave rise to the claims in this lawsuit occurred 

within this District.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 12
- 3 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

12. Venue of this action is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because 

Defendants reside, or at all times material hereto, resided in this judicial district; and the events and 

omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this judicial district.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff and Defendant met when they rented neighboring condominium units in a 

Miami-Dade, Florida residential community in 2012. They developed an amicable relationship, 

including exchanging cell phone numbers and texting one another for neighborly favors.

14. In January 2014, Plaintiff moved to Hollywood, Florida. 

15. Defendant and Plaintiff discussed Plaintiff’s finances in 2014; and at that time, 

Defendant offered Plaintiff his professional investment advisory services.

16. Defendant, who is an investment advisor providing his professional services through 

DWM (the entity he founded), represented to Plaintiff that he (i.e., Defendant) is registered with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as an investment advisor.

17. Defendants provided Plaintiff a brochure about DWM that included the following 

representations and statements: 

(a) “As a registered investment adviser, we are held to the highest standard of client 

care – a fiduciary standard. As a fiduciary, we always put our client’s interests 

first and must fully disclose any potential conflict of interest.”

(b) “DWM offers ongoing portfolio management services based on the individual 

goals, objectives, time horizon, and risk tolerance of each client. DWM creates 

an Investment Policy Statement for each client, which outlines the client’s 

current situation (income, tax levels, and risk tolerance levels) and then 

constructs a plan to aid in the selection of a portfolio that matches each client’s 

specific situation.”

(c) “DWM evaluates the current investments of each client with respect to their 

risk tolerance levels and time horizon. DWM will request discretionary 

authority from clients in order to select securities and execute transactions 

without permission from the client prior to each transaction. Risk tolerance 

levels are documented in the Investment Policy Statement, which is given to 

each client.”

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 12
- 4 - 

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

(d) “DWM seeks to provide that investment decisions are made in accordance with 

the fiduciary duties owed to its accounts and without consideration of DWM’s 

economic, investment or other financial interests. To meet its fiduciary 

obligations, DWM attempts to avoid, among other things, investment or 

trading practices that systematically advantage or disadvantage certain client 

portfolios, and accordingly, DWM’s policy is to seek fair and equitable 

allocation of investment opportunities/transactions among its clients to avoid 

favoring one client over another over time. It is DWM’s policy to allocate 

investment opportunities and transactions it identifies as being appropriate and 

prudent among its clients on a fair and equitable basis over time.” 

(e) “DWM will tailor a program for each individual client. Beyond a risk tolerance 

appraisal, DWM considers the client's investment time horizon along with nearand longer-term liquidity needs and the tax implications of various investment 

transactions.” 

(f) “All client portfolio management accounts are reviewed at least quarterly by 

Brian H Doench with regard to clients’ respective investment policies and risk 

tolerance levels. All accounts at DWM are assigned to this reviewer.” 

(g) Plaintiff could obtain additional information about DWM on the SEC’s website 

at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. DWM’s CRD number is: 171515.

See Exhibit 1 (Doench Wealth Management, LLC Firm Brochure – Form ADV Part 2A).

18. Defendant also provided Plaintiff a brochure about Defendants that included the 

following representations and statements: 

(a) Brian Harold Doench, Personal CRD Number: 5362280, Investment Adviser 

Representative;

(b) “There are no legal or disciplinary events that are material to a client’s or 

prospective client’s evaluation of this advisory business.” 

(c) “Brian Harold Doench is a licensed insurance agent. From time to time, he will 

offer clients advice or products from those activities. Clients should be aware 

that these services pay a commission and involve a conflict of interest, as 

commissionable products conflict with the fiduciary duties of a registered 

investment adviser. Doench Wealth Management, LLC always acts in the best 

interest of the client; including the sale of commissionable products to advisory 

clients. Clients are in no way required to utilize the services of any 

representative of Doench Wealth Management, LLC in such individual’s 

outside capacities.” 

(d) “As the only owner and representative of Doench Wealth Management, LLC, 

Brian Harold Doench supervises all activities of the firm. Brian Harold 

Doench’s response information is on the cover page of this disclosure 

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 12
- 5 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

document. Brian Harold Doench adheres to all required regulations regarding 

the activities of an Investment Adviser Representative and follows all policies 

and procedures outlined in the firm’s policies and procedures manual, including 

the Code of Ethics, and appropriate securities regulatory requirements.”

See Exhibit 2 (Doench Wealth Management, LLC Firm Brochure Form ADV Part 2B – Individual 

Disclosure Brochure).

19. Based on their prior relationship and Defendant’s representations regarding his 

experience and skill in managing investments, Plaintiff agreed to hire Defendant as his investment 

adviser with respect to his IRA.

20. Plaintiff and Defendant held several conferences to discuss Plaintiff’s investment 

strategies, goals, and objectives. 

21. During their conferences, Plaintiff advised Defendant that his IRA was his retirement 

nest egg and that he wanted to be conservatively invested, preserving his principal while achieving 

modest growth.

22. Defendant told Plaintiff that he would create a personalized portfolio for Plaintiff that 

would preserve his principal, avoid subjecting his principal to volatility, and focus on obtaining 

modest, compounded growth.

23. For example, in July 2014, Defendant texted Plaintiff: “Don’t worry, we won’t ever do 

50/50! Gotta preserve your $$ as much as make more lol.” 

24. Defendant assured Plaintiff that his management would be personalized, not “cookie 

cutter,” and would be designed for Plaintiff’s specific investment goals and objectives.

25. After several discussions between Plaintiff and Defendant about Plaintiff’s investment 

needs and goals -- and in reasonable reliance upon the factual representations made to him by 

Defendant – Plaintiff transferred custody and control of his IRAtoDefendant’s care inNovember 2014. 

26. In November 2014, Plaintiff granted Defendant access, control, and discretion to 

Plaintiff’s IRA. At that time, Plaintiff’s IRA consisted of approximately $223,246.68 in cash.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 12
Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 12
- 7 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

35. Emblematic of the disservice Defendant rendered to Plaintiff, Defendant -- without 

seeking approval from Plaintiff -- invested large amounts of Plaintiff’s IRA in questionable and risky 

penny and weed stocks, like Aurora Cannabis (ACB), Ambler (AMBL), eWell Healthcare Corporation 

(EWLL), and KinerjaPay Corp. (KPAY); and those investments all worked to Plaintiff’s detriment. 

SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS

36. Defendant actively traded Plaintiff’s IRA on a near-daily basis, often executing large 

volumes of trades that were exorbitant and contrary to industry standards, particularly for an individual 

retirement account. For example, Defendant invested Plaintiff’s IRA funds in penny stocks, which 

he would then trade tens of times in the course of several months. 

37. Defendant implemented and executed unsustainable and unsuitable trading strategies 

for Plaintiff’s IRA account, which required conservative, non-interventionist strategies with sparse 

amounts of trading and investment in blue-chip companies, like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix 

and Google. 

38. Due to Defendant’s speculative intra-day trading style, Plaintiff suffered hundreds of 

thousands of dollars of losses in a market that was otherwise rising. 

39. A summary of trades executed by Defendant in Plaintiff’s IRA that resulted in a profit 

or loss of at least $10,000.00 include the following:

(a) Stock: Aphria Inc.

Stock Price:1 $3.44

No. of Trades: 12

Dates of Trades: May 24, 2018 – December 6, 2018 

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($15,427.58)

(b) Stock: Aurora Cannabis Inc.

Stock Price: $0.67

No. of Trades: 14

Dates of Trades: May 24, 2018 – March 19, 2019 

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($20,708.94)

1 Stock price is as of or around May 8, 2020.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 12
- 8 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

(c) Stock: Canopy Growth Corp.

Stock Price: $15.34

No. of Trades: 14

Dates of Trades: June 11, 2018 – November 16, 2018 

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($10,427.52)

(d) Stock: Cronos Group Inc.

Stock Price: $5.42

No. of Trades: 11

Dates of Trades: May 24, 2018 – February 6, 2019 

Profit/(Loss) Total: $10,858.24

(e) Stock: eWellness Healthcare Corp.

Stock Price: $0.0002

No. of Trades: 24

Dates of Trades: October 4, 2018 – October 1, 2019 

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($72,089.31)

(f) Stock: iShares Silver Trust

Stock Price: $15.48

No. of Trades: 3

Dates of Trades: November 18, 2014 – May 7, 2018 

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($20,644.87)

(g) Stock: Kinerjapay Corp.

Stock Price: $0.0004

No. of Trades: 17

Dates of Trades: February 20, 2019 – September 20, 2019

Profit/(Loss) Total: ($57,640.97)

(h) Stock: PetIQ Corp.

Stock Price: $29.13

No. of Trades: 31

Dates of Trades: February 15, 2018 – May 10, 2019 

Profit/(Loss) Total: $71,521.83

40. As a result of Defendant’s day-trading Plaintiff’s IRA funds, Plaintiff realized total 

gains of $137,890.41 and suffered total losses of $330,426.52. Even that number $137,890.41 is 

misleading. Subtracting the $71,521.83 gain earned from the PetIQ investment recommended by 

Plaintiff himself, it becomes apparent that Defendant actually only produced for Plaintiff a trading 

gain of $66,368.58 (which was overwhelmingly offset by the $330,426.52 in losses that Defendant 

produced). Again, this was a retirement account. 

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 12
- 9 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

41. In total, Plaintiff suffered a net loss of $192,536.11 along with fees of $1,204.50. 

However, when focusing on the trading losses in the IRA that were strictly based on Defendant’s 

actual trades (i.e., not the positive return received from the PetIQ investment recommended by 

Plaintiff himself) was $264,057.94 -- a staggering seventy-five percent (75%) of Plaintiff’s IRA.

42. In May 2020 -- after suffering the aforementioned losses -- Plaintiff removed 

Defendant from having authorized access to Plaintiff’s IRA.

43. Plaintiff performed all of his duties and obligations; and any conditions precedent to 

Plaintiff bringing this action have occurred, have been performed, or else have been excused or 

waived.

44. To enforce his rights, Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and is obligated to 

pay counsel a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

45. Plaintiff re-alleges, and adopt by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 - 44 above, and further 

alleges:

46. Pursuant to the representations made by Defendants to Plaintiff, Plaintiff agreed to 

entrust funds to Defendants and remit periodic investment advisory fees in exchange for Defendants’ 

investment management and advice. 

47. Defendants were required to manage the investments in the accounts pursuant to 

Plaintiff’s investment objectives, which Defendants did not do.

48. Plaintiff reposed a special confidence in Defendants, who were his advisers and 

reasonably inspired confidence that they would act in good faith for Plaintiff’s best interests.

49. Defendants, as investment advisers, are fiduciaries under the Investment Advisers Act, 

with a duty of utmost good faith, and full and fair disclosure of all material facts, as well as an 

affirmative obligation to avoid misleading clients.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 12
- 10 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

50. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost good faith in dealing with 

Plaintiff, including, but not limited to the following:

(a) The duty to manage Plaintiff’s assets as dictated by Plaintiff’s needs, objectives,

and instructions;

(b) The duty to inform Plaintiff of the risks involved in purchasing or selling a 

particular security;

(c) The duty to diversify Plaintiff’s assets and avoid overconcentration in limited 

number of stocks or asset classes; 

(d) The duty to ensure Plaintiff understood the risks of investing in risky securities 

and strategies and that Plaintiff was willing to take those risks; and

(e) The duty to act in Plaintiff’s best interests.

51. Despite having these fiduciary duties, Defendants took advantage of their position of 

trust and confidence they developed with Plaintiff by using their discretion to invest Plaintiff’s 

retirement money in risky and unsuitable securities that were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s conservative 

investment objectives. 

52. Defendants created and implemented unreasonable, unsuitable, and irresponsible 

investments in relation to Plaintiff’s retirement needs.

53. As a result, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff.

54. Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty proximately caused Plaintiff economic injury. 

55. As a result of the breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered 

damages, and seek, among other things, compensatory damages, well-managed account damages, and 

interests.

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 12
- 11 -

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE

56. Plaintiff re-alleges, and adopt by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 - 44 above, and further 

alleges:

57. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care and discretion in 

managing and administering investments in Plaintiff’s IRA. 

58. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, for example, causing Plaintiff to lose 

hundreds of thousands of dollars in his retirement account between late-2014 and mid-2020, in 

contrast to investment markets rising and appreciating in value over that same period. 

59. Defendants’ negligence and/or gross negligence included their failure to:

(a) Provide Plaintiff with appropriate investment advice;

(b) Make conservative investments by purchasing stocks in blue chip companies 

like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Google;

(c) Provide suitable investment portfolios;

(d) Refrain from engaging in speculative day trading;

(e) Advise Plaintiff that investing in penny stocks and weed stocks is risky; and

(f) Provide investment services and advice in accordance with Defendants’ 

fiduciary duties.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross negligence of

Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff DAVID “RYAN” MCCAIGUE, an individual, demands 

judgment in his favor jointly and severally against Defendants DOENCH WEALTH 

MANAGEMENT, LLC and BRIAN H. DOENCH, as follows:

(a) Awarding compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result of the 

Defendants’ wrongdoing as well as pre-judgment interest, where applicable;

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 11 of 12
- 12 - 

SILVER MILLER

11780 West Sample Road • Coral Springs, Florida 33065 • Telephone (954) 516-6000

www.SilverMillerLaw.com

(b) Awarding post-judgment interest to run from the date an award is entered in 

this matter in favor of Plaintiff until the date that the award is fully paid and 

satisfied by Defendants; 

(c) Awarding fees, commissions, and compensation charged to Plaintiff’s accounts; 

(d) Awarding “well-managed account” damages in an amount to be determined at 

the hearing; 

(e) Awarding punitive damages based on Defendants’ reprehensible, egregious, 

and misrepresentations and/or omissions; 

(f) Awarding Plaintiff all reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, including 

experts’ fees; and 

(g) Awarding such additional equitable/injunctive or other relief as deemed 

appropriate by the Court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by jury in 

this action of all issues so triable.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff DAVID “RYAN” MCCAIGUE reserves his right to further amend this Complaint, 

upon completion of his investigation and discovery, to assert any additional claims for relief against 

Defendants or other parties as may be warranted under the circumstances and as allowed by law.

Dated: July 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

 SILVER MILLER

11780 W. Sample Road

Coral Springs, Florida 33065

Telephone: (954) 516-6000

By: _________________________________ 

DAVID SILVER

Florida Bar No. 572764

E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff David “Ryan” McCaigue

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 12 of 12