Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Expedited Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on the Motion for Class Certification to be Filed April 28, 2023 — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 557, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Expedited Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on the Motion for Class Certification to be Filed April 28, 2023 (Document 557) 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 April 26, 2023. The reply argues that Robinhood's opposition conflates the length of a brief with whether new arguments are raised on reply, and that Robinhood, which noticed 20 depositions and produced two expert reports and two rebuttal reports, should not be able to force Plaintiffs to anticipate all of that material in their opening papers. The four-page filing carries a certificate of service dated April 26, 2023 signed by 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

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 1 of 4




                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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


     In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
              TRADING LITIGATION




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




      PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXPEDITED MOTION FOR
     EXPANSION OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR BRIEFING ON THE MOTION FOR
             CLASS CERTIFICATION TO BE FILED APRIL 28, 2023
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 2 of 4




          The thrust of Robinhood’s opposition to the instant motion is that, given 30 pages to
   respond to its opposition brief, Plaintiffs will first raise arguments that should have been
   anticipated and addressed in the opening papers. ECF 556 at 3. (This argument conflates two
   issues. Whether or not a new argument is raised on reply has nothing to do with the length of the
   brief.) But what arguments and evidence should Plaintiffs be required to address in their opening
   papers?
          Even though Plaintiffs have the burden of proof on this evidentiary motion, Robinhood is
   the party that noticed 20 depositions and intends to rely on two experts. While movants must make
   their case in the opening papers, Robinhood’s goal appears to be to flood the zone with a boatload
   of evidence so as to force Plaintiffs to blunt their cogent arguments in support of class certification
   with a slew of defensive arguments. Not only did Robinhood produce two expert reports and two
   expert rebuttal reports (critiquing Plaintiffs’ lone expert), but they have taken days of third-party
   testimony of multiple retail investors unrelated to the twelve proposed representatives (all of whom
   will have sat for deposition). Plaintiffs cannot know how much of this vast material Robinhood
   intends to rely upon in its opposition papers and should not be forced to raise matters not necessary
   to prevail on this motion. Hopefully, Robinhood’s opposition will eschew much of the chaff and
   not necessitate a 30-page reply. However, fairness requires that the proponents of class certification
   be permitted to make their best affirmative arguments in the opening brief and leave for reply the
   matters Robinhood chooses to raise.

   Dated: April 26, 2023                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                  THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
                                                  Laurence M. Rosen, FBN# 0182877
                                                  Phillip Kim
                                                  Robin Bronzaft Howald
                                                  Jonathan Stern
                                                  Brent LaPointe
                                                  Michael 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

                                                     1
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 3 of 4




                                     Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and
                                     Named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava Bernard,
                                     Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Doi
                                     Nguyen, Joseph Gurney, Marcel Poirier, Sandy Ng,
                                     Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and Thomas Cash




                                        2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 4 of 4




                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          I hereby certify that on April 26, 2023, 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




                                                3


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.557.0.pdf

Size

150,001 bytes

SHA-256

8d18a11bfb8607a01a31c812a32cf11a3f8e8509ea2b1658ebeac4a4664abc86

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.557.0.pdf

Original

archive.org