Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 482, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint (Document 482) 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 14, 2022 and relating to the Other Broker Tranche. Plaintiffs Peter Jang and Erik Chavez argue that there is no good cause to depart from the Court's Order of June 3, 2021, which set special page limits of 40, 40 and 20 pages, and note that Apex's initial memorandum did not even fill 36 pages. The three-page filing says the later expansion to 50, 50 and 30 pages covered briefing on subject matter jurisdiction, since resolved, and is signed by Peter Safirstein and Gary S. Graifman.
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
“Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Apex Clearing Corporation's Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing… (Dkt. 482).”
Original at archive.org, dated 2022-06-10. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-06-10-covid-era-misc-eaa1c00b-1/
, SHA-256 eaa1c00b96df99961741205e85938ee534ba98cc08d2eee9b324e6ba84371de5.Full text
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 482 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2022 Page 1 of 3
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
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT APEX CLEARING CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR EXPANSION OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR BRIEFING ON ITS
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Peter Jang and Erik Chavez oppose the motion of defendant Apex Clearing
Corporation (“Apex”) to expand the page limits set forth in Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) regarding its
anticipated Motion to Dismiss regarding Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint filed June 10, 2022
(“Complaint”). There exists no good cause as to why Apex is unable to efficiently argue its
positions in accordance with the Court’s Order of June 3, 2021 wherein the Court already
ordered “special page limits” of 40 pages for the motion to dismiss, 40 pages for the opposition
and 20 pages for reply. (ECF 323). Importantly, Apex’s counsel has already demonstrated its
ability to efficiently argue its position well within the page limits set by the Court in its Order of
June 3rd. In fact, Apex’s initial memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss a similar
complaint did not even fill 36 pages – below the page limit set by the court. (See ECF 405).
The Court granted a later consented-to request by Apex (and other defendants in the
consolidated action) to expand the page limits for Apex’s motion to dismiss and opposition to 50
pages each and reply to 30 pages (ECF 417) in connection with Defendant’s motion to dismiss
filed October 15, 2021. (ECF 422). That round of briefing, however, unlike the current round,
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 482 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2022 Page 2 of 3
contained extensive argument regarding the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. That issue has
been resolved and no longer requires briefing.
Moreover, having been granted 10 additional pages (from 40 to 50), Apex proceeded on
October 15, 2021 to submit a bloated repetitive brief rife with factual and legal inaccuracies.
True to form, Apex cannot even file its 6 page brief in support of its motion for expanded
briefing without setting forth the misleading argument that “the Court granted Apex’s Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice on January 10, 2022” (Def. Motion at 2) while failing to acknowledge
that the Court’s opinion did not reach any of Apex’s remaining arguments after finding that the
Court lacked “subject matter jurisdiction.” (ECF 450 at 4). While it is true that the operative
complaint is not identical to the previously filed complaint and adds allegations and one claim,
counsel as skilled as Apex’s counsel should be able to efficiently address the entirety of the
Complaint in the allotted 40 pages (with 20 pages for reply).
Accordingly, Apex’s motion should be denied.
Dated: June 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter Safirstein
Peter Safirstein*
SAFIRSTEIN LAW LLC
45 N. Broad Street
Suite 100
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Tel: (917) 952-9458
psafirstein@safirsteinlaw.com
Gary S. Graifman*
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, P.C.
16 Squadron Boulevard
New City, New York 10956
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 482 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2022 Page 3 of 3
Phone: (845) 356-2570
Fax: (845) 356-4335
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the
Other Broker Tranche
Rachel W. Furst
GROSSMAN ROTH TAFFA
COHEN, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134-6040
Tel: 305-442-8666
rwf@gossmanroth.com
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
*Counsels’ Certificates of Understanding
have previously been filed
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.482.0.pdf
- Size
- 549,886 bytes
- SHA-256
- eaa1c00b96df99961741205e85938ee534ba98cc08d2eee9b324e6ba84371de5
- Original
- archive.org