Robinhood's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order for Leave to Amend — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 499, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Robinhood's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order for Leave to Amend (Document 499) 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 July 26, 2022 and relating to the Federal Securities Tranche. Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC state that Plaintiffs have not provided a copy of their proposed First Amended Complaint, that Local Rule 15.1 requires a motion for leave with the proposed pleading, and that Robinhood opposes the Motion (ECF No. 495) as procedurally improper. The three-page response notes that Plaintiffs propose to add material from the House Committee on Financial Services' June 24, 2022 Report while Robinhood's Motion to Dismiss remains pending.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE No. 21-MD-2989-ALTONAGA/TORRES

In re:

JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_____________________________________/

This Document Relates to the Federal Securities Tranche

ROBINHOOD’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood
Securities, LLC (collectively, “Robinhood”) respectfully submit this response to Plaintiffs’
Motion For Entry of a Scheduling Order for Leave to Amend.  (ECF No. 495.)  Plaintiffs have
not provided Robinhood with a copy of their proposed First Amended Complaint and have not
articulated (in their Motion filed with the Court or their discussions with Robinhood) what their
new allegations will be.  To amend their pleadings, Plaintiffs must file both a motion for leave to
amend and their proposed amended pleading for the Court’s review.  S.D. Fla. Local Rule 15.1.
Robinhood opposes the present Motion as procedurally improper and intends to oppose
Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for leave to amend the Federal Securities Tranche consolidated
complaint.
As Robinhood demonstrated in the briefing on its pending Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiffs do not allege that Robinhood engaged in any conduct that would state a claim for
securities fraud or market manipulation under Sections 9(a) or 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act.  (See generally ECF Nos. 449 and 455.)  By filing the present Motion, Plaintiffs apparently
recognize that their existing complaint (ECF No. 446) is defective.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 499   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022   Page 1 of 3

2
Rather than wait for the Court’s resolution of Robinhood’s Motion, Plaintiffs
propose that they be permitted to move for leave to amend to include material from the House
Committee on Financial Services’ June 24, 2022 Report (the “House Report”) that will
purportedly support their claims.  Plaintiffs leave Robinhood and the Court in the dark as to what
their new allegations will be or how any material from the House Report will support those
allegations.  Instead, Plaintiffs assert in general terms that some of this material “provide[s]
supports to [Plaintiffs’] price manipulation and scheme claims,” conceding that this material
does not provide support to their misrepresentation claims.  (ECF No. 495, at 4.)  But there is
nothing in the House Report that could save Plaintiffs’ flawed market manipulation claims (or
their misrepresentation claims).  Nor are the internal Robinhood communications cited in the
House Report any different in nature from those Plaintiffs already have from the complaints in
other tranches,1 many of which Plaintiffs already included in their existing complaint.
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs do not articulate what their new allegations will
be and because any amendment would be futile, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for
relief.

1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 323), Robinhood previously made a production of
documents to plaintiffs in the Robinhood Tranche and the Antitrust Tranche.  Before filing their
existing complaint (ECF No. 446), Plaintiffs here had the opportunity to review the complaints in
those tranches (ECF Nos. 409 and 416) and incorporated many of those documents into their
existing complaint.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 499   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022   Page 2 of 3

3
Dated:  July 26, 2022
/s/ Samuel A. Danon
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
Samuel A. Danon (FBN 892671)
María Castellanos Alvarado (FBN 116545)
333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 810-2500
Facsimile: (305) 810-2460
sdanon@HuntonAK.com
mcastellanos@HuntonAK.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Antony L. Ryan
Kevin J. Orsini
Brittany L. Sukiennik
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
Counsel for Defendants Robinhood Financial
LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC and
Robinhood Markets, Inc.

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 499   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.499.0.pdf

Size

136,085 bytes

SHA-256

1ed2c8e233e626172db60dabaf3126d9d3e68c4b101010f780f07b8277ab9391

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.499.0.pdf

Original

archive.org