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