Order (Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Rule 42) — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 612, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

An Order (Document 612) 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 September 21, 2023 and done and ordered in Miami, Florida on September 21, 2023 above the name of Chief United States District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, relating to the actions in the Federal Securities Tranche. On Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Rule 42 [ECF No. 605], filed September 5, 2023, the order notes that Defendants consent but that counsel for the Plaintiffs in Scarborough v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 23-cv-21572, and Gossett v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 21-cv-21293, oppose. The three-page order consolidates the federal securities laws claims against Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial, LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC for all purposes, including trial.

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. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian

In re:

JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_________________________________/

This Document Relates to the Actions in the Federal Securities Tranche

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to
Rule 42 [ECF No. 605], filed on September 5, 2023.  Plaintiffs seek to consolidate for all purposes,
including trial, all federal securities laws claims against Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Robinhood Financial, LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC that have been filed or may be filed
in this multidistrict litigation.1
Plaintiffs advise that Defendants consent to the relief sought but that counsel for the
Plaintiffs in Scarborough v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 23-cv-21572, and Gossett v.
Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 21-cv-21293, oppose the Motion.  (See Mot. 15).2  Under the
Local Rules, “each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law not later
than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.  Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient

1 The actions asserting federal securities laws claims and assigned to the Federal Securities Tranche are:
Daniels v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-21261; Days v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-21310; Gatz v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 21-cv-21296; Lagmanson et al. v. Robinhood
Markets, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-21298; Gossett et al. v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-21293;
Muncy v. Robinhood Securities, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-21307; Krumenacker v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
et al., No. 21-cv-21343; Quat et al. v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-21404; Best et al. v.
Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-21534; Carrasco v. Robinhood Financial LLC, et al., No. 21-
cv-22702; and Scarborough v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, No. 23-cv-21572.

2 The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in the headers
of all court filings.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 612   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2023   Page 1 of 3

CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian

2

cause for granting the motion by default.”  S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c).  To date, no party has responded
to the Motion or requested an extension of time within which to do so.
Moreover, consolidation for all purposes of the actions in the Federal Securities Tranche
is appropriate.  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate actions that
“involve a common question of law or fact.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).  The decision to consolidate is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court.  See Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,
776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).  In exercising this discretion, the court
must determine:
[w]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by
the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden
on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits,
the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and
the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.
Id. (alteration adopted; other alteration added; quotation marks and citation omitted).
As Plaintiffs explain, the underlying actions in the Federal Securities Tranche assert
substantially the same claims against the same Defendants.  (See Mot. 8–9).  Indeed, the federal
securities laws claims in the underlying actions are presently merged for the duration of pretrial
proceedings by virtue of the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  (See Sept. 7, 2023
Order [ECF No. 607] 7 (citing Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 413 n.3 (2015)).
Therefore, consolidation for all purposes, including trial, is unlikely to result in undue prejudice
or confusion and would instead conserve party and judicial resources, avoid delays, and avoid
inconsistent adjudications.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to
Rule 42 [ECF No. 605] is GRANTED.  All federal securities laws claims that have been filed or
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 612   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2023   Page 2 of 3

CASE NO. 21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian

3

may be filed against Defendants in this multidistrict litigation are consolidated for all purposes,
including trial.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of September, 2023.

    _______________________________________

   CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

   CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 612   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2023   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.612.0.pdf

Size

161,512 bytes

SHA-256

d605465a30dd5ff19bf18aae22555c4b1d73c04d97acb51e0eb20207bde764ce

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.612.0.pdf

Original

archive.org