Order (Document 764): Marcel Poirier’s Motion to Compel Good Faith Payment, denied — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation

Summary

An Order in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case No. 21-02989-MD-ALTONAGA (Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA, Document 764), entered on the FLSD docket May 22, 2025, denying pro se Plaintiff Marcel Poirier's First Motion [ECF No. 759], Second Motion [ECF No. 762] and Third Motion [ECF No. 763], each seeking a good faith payment before mediation. The Court finds that Local Rule 16.2 requires participation in court-ordered mediation with full authority to settle but no pre-mediation payment or settlement offer, that Rule 11 does not apply because a party chooses not to negotiate, and that Robinhood's FINRA membership does not empower the Court to enforce pre-mediation payments. Done and ordered on the 22nd day of May, 2025, the order carries the name and title of Chief United States District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

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-MD-ALTONAGA

In re:

JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_________________________________/

This Document Relates to All Actions

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff, Marcel Poirier’s Motion to
Compel Good Faith Payment Based on Historical Enforcement of Rule 16.2 (“First Motion”) [ECF
No. 759], filed on May 19, 2025; Summary Motion Clarifying Timing of Good Faith Demand and
Rule 11 Implications (“Second Motion”) [ECF No. 762], filed on May 20, 2025; and Motion to
Enforce Good Faith Payment Obligation Based on FINRA Membership and Market Integrity
(“Third Motion”) [ECF No. 763], filed on May 20, 2025.  Each Motion is denied.
A.  First Motion
Poirier once again asks the Court to compel Defendants to make a “good faith payment”
before mediation, invoking Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.2 and citing several out-of-
circuit decisions.  (See First Mot. 1; see also, e.g., Third Emergency Filing [ECF No. 748]).1
The Court is not persuaded.  Rule 16.2 requires that parties participate in court-ordered
mediation and appear with full authority to settle.  See S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(e).  Nothing in Rule
16.2 requires that a party make a pre-mediation payment or settlement offer, nor does it authorize
the Court to compel such payment as a condition of good faith participation.  The Rule is focused

1 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 764   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2025   Page 1 of 3

CASE NO. 21-02989-MD-ALTONAGA

2
on ensuring that parties appear, engage in the mediation process, and have the authority to
negotiate — not to predetermine or compel specific financial concessions.  See id.
Plaintiff also cites a litany of out-of-circuit cases (see First Mot. 1), but none supports the
notion that a party may be compelled to make a payment or settlement offer before mediation.  By
Plaintiff’s own account, the decisions he relies on involved parties who skipped mediation, lacked
authority, or otherwise derailed the process — not mere silence before it began.  Rule 16.2
demands participation in mediation, not pre-mediation concessions.  See S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(e).
The conduct Plaintiff describes does not violate the Rule and warrants no court-imposed remedy.
B.  Second Motion
In the Second Motion, Poirier styles — or perhaps attempts to disguise — his demand for
a pre-mediation payment as a “Summary Motion Clarifying Timing of Good Faith Demand and
Rule 11 Implications.”  (Second Mot. 1).  No amount of procedural framing changes the
fundamental flaw: there is no authority requiring Defendants to make an advance payment before
mediation.  Poirier’s dissatisfaction with Robinhood’s silence or refusal to settle does not justify
judicial intervention.  Rule 11 does not apply simply because a party chooses not to negotiate.
C.  Third Motion
In the Third Motion, Poirier again asks the Court to compel Defendants to make a good-
faith payment before mediation.  (See generally Third Mot.).  Remarkably, he cites no legal
authority — no statute, rule, or case — that supports such relief.  That Robinhood is a member of
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) does not empower the Court to enforce pre-
mediation payments, nor does Local Rule 16.2, as explained.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pro se Plaintiff, Marcel Poirier’s Motion to Compel
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 764   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2025   Page 2 of 3

CASE NO. 21-02989-MD-ALTONAGA

3
Good Faith Payment Based on Historical Enforcement of Rule 16.2 [ECF No. 759]; Summary
Motion Clarifying Timing of Good Faith Demand and Rule 11 Implications [ECF No. 762]; and
Motion to Enforce Good Faith Payment Obligation Based on FINRA Membership and Market
Integrity [ECF No. 763] are DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of May, 2025.

  ________________________________________
  CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
  CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc:
counsel of record

Marcel Poirier, pro se
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 764   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2025   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.764.0.pdf

Size

171,029 bytes

SHA-256

765e871f3ab519b7fece39fb3a3be02a955393cdb88497ca5d1476786f371367

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.764.0.pdf

Original

archive.org