Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
FILED BY
D,C.
MAï 0 2225
ANGELA E. NOE' ;
CLEHK U S DISI (;(
s. D, oF F'LA. -MjA..,I
IN RE: JANUARY 2021SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONTO COMPELGOOD FAITH PAYMENT EASED ON HISTORICAL
ENFORCEM ENT olz RIJLE 16.2
Plaintiff Marcel Poirie: appearing pro se, respectfully files this Motion to enforce the
obligations of Rule 16.2, emphasizing historical judicial enforcement of good faith mediation
across U.S. District Coults and reinforcing the legal precedent that m andates compliance
when a party d
, elays, obstructs, or avoids pre-m ediation responsibilities.
1. Rule 16.2 of the Southern District of Florida requires that parties participate in
court-ordered m ediation in good faith. This rule is not discretionary; courts have routinely
held thatgood faith participation includes timely comm unication, responsiveness, and
snancial readiness to engage m eaningfully in resolution.
2. Multiple federal courts have explicitly compelled action or sanctioned parties for failing to
m eet their good faith obligations. Notably:
- In *sanchez v. R.I. Housing*, D.R.I. (2015), the court sanctioned the defendant after it
appeared at m ediation unprepared and without authority to resolve the matten The ruling
emphasized that m ediation requires full good faith participation and readiness to settle.
- In *In re: Ford Transmission Litigation*, E.D. Mich. (2022), Ford delayed the mediation
process under the guise of litigation strategy. The court issued warnings and mandated
im mediate cooperation, citing bad faith tactics.
- In *Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police*y 6th Cin (2003), the court affirmed that
deliberate obstruction of the discovery and m ediation process could result in enforced
penalties under procedunal rules.
- In *lludson v. United Sotes*, 6th Cir. (2004), the court ruled that silence or strategic
avoidance in m ediation undermines tlze court's ability to fairly administer pretrial
resolutions-The party that caused delay w as sanctioned.
- In *In re: Business Men's Assurance Co. of America*, 8th Cin (1998), the court confirmed
that even im plied failure to mediate in good faith- through tim ing gam es or silence- could
warrant court-ordered enforcem ent.
3. Plaintiff submits that no case on record has ever justihed refusal to enforce Rule 16.2
obligations w hen good faith is clearly underm ined. If a party delays or fails to respond
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 759 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2025 Page 1 of 3
entirely courts have consistently m oved toward enforcem ent- not tolerance of the
obstruction.
4. Plaintië as a non-customer not subject to arbitration, retains the full protection of Rule
16.2. Robinhood's legal silence and absence of a good fait.h paym ent violates the spirit and
letter of this rule.
REQUEST F0R RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully aslcs the Court to:
1. Enforce Rule 16.2;
2. Com pel a good faith response or written explanation from Defendants;
3. Issue a warning or sanctions for continued refusal.
DATED: May 12, 2025
Respectfully submitled,
MARCEL POIRIER
Pro Se Plaintiff
31U-1225 Dieppe Boulevard, Dieppe, NB, E1A-1H2, CANADA
Email: marcelpoirierl8@gmail.com
Phone: 506-961-9712
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 759 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2025 Page 2 of 3
(74: X
-
m :u -
llE?
-:$
V l
'telephpr:e No
f
.rV' de têlêpbozhe
'
. j'y g . 6y d u '
A
@)
. -
, i
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 759 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2025 Page 3 of 3