Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Chavez and Jang's Class Action Complaint — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 480, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Chavez and Jang's Class Action Complaint (Document 480) 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 June 13, 2022 and relating to the Other Broker Tranche. The six-page motion asks to expand the limits in Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) so that Apex may file a memorandum supporting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint filed June 10, 2022 (ECF No. 479) not to exceed fifty pages and a reply not to exceed thirty pages, with Plaintiffs' response not to exceed fifty pages. Apex states that Plaintiffs opposed the request. It carries a certificate of service dated June 13, 2022 signed by Jack E. Pace III.

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

Date: 2022-06-10

Cite this document

“Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on its Motion to Dismiss… (Dkt. 480).” Original at archive.org, dated 2022-06-10. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-06-10-covid-era-misc-9ba02157-1/, SHA-256 9ba0215701ee3381401d90f7fcaf122f56fc6746a0b71f950da5bd1e9b902ad2.

Full text

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres

IN RE: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION

This Document Relates to the Other Broker Tranche.

DEFENDANT APEX CLEARING CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR EXPANSION
OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR BRIEFING ON ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS CHAVEZ AND JANG’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation (“Apex”), by and through undersigned counsel,

respectfully submits this motion requesting an order granting an expansion of the page limits set

forth in Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) and leave to file, in response to Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint

filed June 10, 2022 (ECF No. 479 Ex. A) (the “Third Complaint”): (1) a memorandum of law in

support of Apex’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Third Complaint, not to exceed

fifty (50) pages; and (2) a reply brief not to exceed thirty (30) pages. Apex also proposes that

Plaintiffs be permitted to file a response to Apex’s motion to dismiss not to exceed fifty (50) pages

in length.

Apex proposed to Plaintiffs that the parties be bound by the same page limits applicable to

the parties’ earlier motion-to-dismiss briefing (see Order dated September 23, 2021 (ECF No.

417)), even though Plaintiffs’ latest complaint reflects a new claim and new allegations not present

in Plaintiffs’ earlier complaint. But Plaintiffs opposed Apex’s request, necessitating this motion.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 2 of 6

In support of this request, Apex states as follows:

1. On June 3, 2021, this Court set forth a schedule including special page limits for briefing

including joint Motions to Dismiss in the Robinhood, Other Broker, and Antitrust Tranches.

ECF No. 323.

2. On September 23, 2021, this Court amended the briefing schedule for the Robinhood and Other

Broker Tranches, expanding the page limits for the joint Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’

responses to no more than 50 pages each and Defendants’ reply to no more than 30 pages each.

ECF No. 417.

3. Defendant Apex filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Class Action

Complaint as to the Other Broker Tranche on October 15, 2021. ECF No. 422. The Court

granted Apex’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice on January 10, 2022. ECF No. 450.

4. On February 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint nearly identical to the complaint previously

dismissed by this Court, but Plaintiffs filed in the Southern District of New York and added a

claim and additional allegations. Specifically, Plaintiffs added a claim for Breach of the

Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, added allegations regarding an alleged

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (new paragraphs) and Apex’s Customer Agreements (new

subsection), and inserted various bolstering citations. Docket No. 1:22-cv-01233 (S.D.N.Y.

Feb. 14, 2022) (ECF No. 4).

5. On June 9, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that Plaintiffs’ recently-

filed complaint should be transferred back to this Court. See Transfer Order and Notice of

Filing of Complaint (ECF Nos. 478 and 479).

6. On June 9, 2022, this Court directed the parties in briefing any motion to dismiss to adhere to

the requirements of the Local Rules and more broadly “[to] assum[e] the same positions that

2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 3 of 6

they occupied prior to the January 10, 2022 Order [ECF No. 450] dismissing the case without

prejudice [and] . . . to comply with all previously entered Orders on the MDL docket.” Order

dated June 9, 2022 (ECF No. 478).

7. On June 12, 2022, Apex counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to propose that the briefing on

Apex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Complaint be governed by the same page limits as

applied to the parties’ motion-to-dismiss briefing regarding the Plaintiffs’ nearly identical

complaint last before this Court, i.e., 50 pages for Defendant’s motion, 50 pages for Plaintiffs’

opposition, and 30 pages for Defendant’s reply. Plaintiffs responded that they will oppose

Apex’s request. See Certificate of Good Faith, infra.

8. Grant of Apex’s requested extension is also supported by the nature and scope of Plaintiffs’

Third Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Complaint (ECF No. 479 Ex. A) asserts numerous claims

to which Apex individually must respond, i.e., state common law claims of negligence, breach

of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with a business relationship, and a new claim for breach

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs’ Third Complaint involves a

complex factual background, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ 40-page complaint (ECF No. 479 Ex.

A) containing 136 paragraphs. While this Court is well familiar with the factual background

of the “meme stock” trading and trading restrictions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims, the factual

background underlying Plaintiffs’ claims is complex and requires at least a brief discussion of,

among other things, the market dynamics and mechanisms leading to a so-called “short

squeeze” and the resulting impact on clearing operations, the regulatory regime governing

clearing operations, and the role, obligations, and operating procedures of clearing brokers and

other broker-dealersboth in the ordinary course of business and during periods of market

3
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 4 of 6

volatility. Apex’s responsive pleading requires additional pages to adequately address and

distill these complex topics.

9. This action also contains an additional layer of complexity in that there is an apparent dispute

as to whether Texas or New York law governs, given the forum of filing. Thus Apex will be

required to apply and argue the laws of both jurisdictions (though they are similar in material

respects) in its motion to dismiss.

10. Apex’s request is reciprocal and would allow Plaintiffs a corresponding expansion of the Local

Rules’ page limit for Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendant Apex respectfully requests that this Court enter an order

setting a limit of fifty (50) pages for the opening memorandum of law and opposition regarding

the motion to dismiss and a limit of thirty (30) pages for the reply memorandum.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A) and (B), undersigned counsel attempted to confer with

Plaintiffs’ counsel of record by email on June 12, 2022, noting their intent to request that the Court

impose the same page limits on the motion to dismiss briefing regarding Plaintiffs’ Third

Complaint as were in place for the earlier briefing regarding Plaintiffs’ earlier, nearly identical

complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded they would oppose Apex’s request.

Dated: June 13, 2022

/s/ Jack E. Pace III
Jack E. Pace III
Bryan D. Gant
WHITE & CASE LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Tel.: (212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
E-mail: jpace@whitecase.com

4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 5 of 6

J. Mark Gidley
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: (202) 626-3600
Fax: (202) 639-9355
Email: mgidley@whitecase.com

Angela Daker
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 South Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 371-2700
Fax: (305) 358-5744
adaker@whitecase.com

Counsel for Defendant Apex Clearing Corp.

5
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on June 13, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I further certify that this

motion was served on all counsel of record via transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing

generated by the Court’s CF/ECF System.

/s/ Jack E. Pace III_______________
Jack E. Pace III

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.480.0.pdf
Size: 64,840 bytes
SHA-256: 9ba0215701ee3381401d90f7fcaf122f56fc6746a0b71f950da5bd1e9b902ad2
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.480.0.pdf
Original: archive.org