Exhibit A: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 22-10669-JJ — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 471-1, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

An order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 22-10669-JJ, dated May 13, 2022 and filed as Exhibit A (Document 471-1) in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the FLSD docket May 19, 2022. Before Circuit Judges Wilson and Luck, the court grants the appellants' motion to amend the jurisdictional pleadings in the appeal by Andrea Juncadella and other plaintiffs against the Robinhood defendants. As amended, the pleadings allege that the named plaintiffs were citizens of Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Texas, California and South Carolina, among others, and that the Robinhood defendants were Delaware companies based in California and Florida. The court deems the pleadings sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and lets the appeal proceed.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 471-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022   Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No.  22-10669-JJ
________________________

In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION,

_______________________________________________________________

ANDREA JUNCADELLA,
EDWARD GOODAN,
WILLIAM MAKEHAM,
MARK SANDERS,
JAIME RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

PATRICK YOUNG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

CITADEL LC,
d.b.a. Citadel Securities, et al.,

Defendants.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10669     Date Filed: 05/13/2022     Page: 1 of 2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 471-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022   Page 2 of 3

2

Before:  WILSON and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The appellants’ motion to amend the jurisdictional pleadings, incorporated in the parties’
joint response to the jurisdictional question, is GRANTED.  As amended, the pleadings will allege
that the named plaintiffs were citizens of, inter alia, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Texas, California,
and South Carolina;1 defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc. and Robinhood Financial LLC were
Delaware companies with their principal places of business in California; and defendant
Robinhood Securities, LLC was a Delaware company with its principal place of business in
Florida.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), (d)(10); Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269
(11th Cir. 2013).  We deem the pleadings, as amended, sufficient to demonstrate that at least one
plaintiff in this putative class action was diverse from one defendant, satisfying the requirements
of diversity jurisdiction.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
This appeal may therefore proceed.  The parties shall notify the district court of this order
by filing copies of the order and the complaint, as amended, with that court.

1 The proposed amendments also update the diversity allegations with respect to a plaintiff
who formerly resided in Michigan but later became a domiciliary of Ontario, Canada.  Because
citizenship is determined at the time the relevant pleadings are filed, subsequent changes to a
party’s citizenship generally are not important.  See Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.,
498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).  In any event, only “minimal diversity” is required here, and the
citizenship of other plaintiffs is properly alleged.  See Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159,
1163 (11th Cir. 2006).
USCA11 Case: 22-10669     Date Filed: 05/13/2022     Page: 2 of 2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 471-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.471.1.pdf

Size

139,311 bytes

SHA-256

1ea50103ba7bbe731d724aa5fc8bd69361982b4f76c3d7d452bd628608b92b62

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.471.1.pdf

Original

archive.org