Notice of Intent Not to Proceed — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Litigation

Summary

A Notice of Intent Not to Proceed with the Motion Requesting a Scheduling Order re: Amendment of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Document 505) in In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA (Case No. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated August 22, 2022 and entered on the FLSD docket the same day. Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and the named Plaintiffs state that the Court's Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt. No. 503) instructed them to say whether they would proceed with their motion for a scheduling order on amending the complaint. Plaintiffs do not intend to proceed with that motion and will stand on the operative complaint; the three-page notice is signed /s/ Laurence M. Rosen.

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. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres

This Document Relates to: All Actions Involving the Federal Securities Laws

NOTICE OF INTENT NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE MOTION REQUESTING A
SCHEDULING ORDER RE: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT

In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 505   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022   Page 1 of 3

1

NOTICE
Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge, named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava Bernard,
Brandon Martin, Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Garland Ragland Jr., Joseph
Gurney, Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and Trevor Tarvis (collectively “Plaintiffs”), hereby file notice
in accordance with the Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  Dkt. No. 503.
In the conclusion of the Court’s Order, the Court instructed Plaintiffs to “file a notice
indicating whether they would like to proceed with their Motion Requesting Entry of a Scheduling
Order Re: Amendment of Complaint.”  Id. at 52.
In light of the Court’s Order allowing several of Plaintiffs’ claims to move forward,
Plaintiffs do not intend to proceed with their motion requesting a scheduling order for filing an
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs intend to stand on the operative complaint and proceed on the
claims that have survived the Court’s Order on the motion to dismiss.
Dated: August 22, 2022
 Respectfully submitted,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, FBN# 0182877
Robin Bronzaft Howald
Michael A. Cohen
By: /s/Laurence M. Rosen
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge
and Named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava
Bernard, Brandon Martin, Brendan Clarke, Brian
Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Garland Ragland Jr.,
Joseph Gurney, Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and
Trevor Tarvis
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 505   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022   Page 2 of 3

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 22, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served by CM/ECF to the parties registered to the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 505   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.505.0.pdf

Size

133,776 bytes

SHA-256

835cf56d7369999b494ed556a14beee49b29ac8cb6fbaeac19cb8855aa72a397

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.505.0.pdf

Original

archive.org