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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-1995-16T1

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 
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.