Case No. Complaint

Case 4:21-cv-00696-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 14
1 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS

O’BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
2 Matthew L. Venezia (State Bar No. 313812)
mvenezia@bgrfirm.com
3 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, California 90067
4 Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
5
Attorney for Plaintiff Robert Days
6
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11 ROBERT DAYS, Case No.
12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR

13 vs. (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(2) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
14 ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; (3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
15 ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; APEX (4) DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE;
CLEARING HOLDINGS LLC; AND APEX (5) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
16 CLEARING CORPORATION. WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
. ADVANTAGE;
17 (6) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
18 ADVANTAGE;
(7) VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 10-B;
19 (8) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
20 (9) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
21
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
22
23 Trial Date: None Set
24
25
26
27
28
1745556.1 Case No.

COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Robert Days brings this Complaint for damages, and equitable and declaratory
2 relief, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, against defendants Robinhood
3 Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial, LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC (collectively
4 “Robinhood”), and Apex Clearing Holdings LLC and Apex Clearing Corporation (collectively,
5 (“Apex”), and alleges as follows:
6 PARTIES
7 1. Robert Days is an individual residing in Kansas City, MO.
8 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant Robinhood
9 Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Menlo Park,
10 California.
12 Financial, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in
13 Menlo Park, California.
15 Securities, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in
16 Menlo Park, California.
17 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant Apex
18 Clearing Holdings LLC is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in
19 Dallas, Texas.
20 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant Apex
21 Clearing Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas,
22 Texas.
23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
25 1332(d)(2)(A) because the amount in controversy well exceeds $5 million and Plaintiff represents
26 a putative nationwide class that includes well in excess of 100 members, and upon information
27 and belief, includes members from each of the other 49 states besides California. Defendants have
28 principal places of business in California and Texas. There is also federal question jurisdiction for
1745556.1 Case No.

-1-
COMPLAINT
1 the SEC Rule 10-b claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction for the
2 related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3 8. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, upon
4 information and belief, Robinhood’s principal place of business is located within this district,
5 Robinhood and Apex are subject to personal jurisdiction here, and a substantial part of the events
6 or omissions that gave rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this district.
7 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Robinhood because, upon information
8 and belief, Robinhood maintains its principal place of business in California, and specifically
9 within this judicial district. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Robinhood because
10 Robinhood regularly markets and sells its services to customers in California. The Court has
11 personal jurisdiction over Apex because Apex effectuates the trades placed by Robinhood
12 customers and does substantial business within the state, including placing trades and refusing to
13 place trades by California customers, as is at issue in this case.
14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 10. Founded in 2013, Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to
16 effectuate trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Robinhood’s platform is
17 primarily app-based and, as hinted by its name, Robinhood represents that it aims to “provide
18 everyone with access to the financial markets, not just the wealthy.”
19 11. Upon information and belief, Apex is in the financial services industry, and
20 partners with Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on Robinhood’s platform.
21 12. Upon information and belief, Robinhood has grown to now have more than 13
22 million users. Robinhood has earned significant revenue and raised hundreds of millions of dollars
23 in investments. Upon information and belief, certain of those investors hold short positions on the
24 stocks discussed herein.
25 13. Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp. (GME) began
26 to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the excessive short positions in the
27 company. This event received significant coverage in the press.
28 14. As investors began to look for the next GameStop, investor interest in AMC
1745556.1 Case No.

-2-
COMPLAINT
1 Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC) and Nokia (NOK) began to rise, causing their stock prices to
2 increase.
3 15. Until January 28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these
4 securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and belief, many Robinhood customers
5 purchased AMC and NOK in reliance on the continued availability of the Robinhood platform,
6 allowing the customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so.
7 16. Plaintiff in fact previously purchased positions in AMC and NOK, and intended to
8 purchase additional positions in those securities in the future, all through Robinhood.
9 17. However, on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media
10 coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying several stocks, including AMC and NOK.
11 Robinhood blamed this bar publicly on an action taken by Apex. Robinhood has announced it will
12 allow “limited buys of these securities” starting on January 29, 2021.
13 18. This action artificially deflated the price of the effected stocks, including AMC and
14 NOK, harming all investors who held the stock, to the benefit of those holding short positions.
15 This action further harmed investors who intended to buy the stocks in the future, relying on a fair
16 market to be available in the securities.
17 19. Ironically, this action was to the benefit of hedge funds that hold short positions in
18 these stocks. In other words, Robinhood (and Apex) stole from the poor to give to the rich.
19 20. Plaintiff is a retail customer of Robinhood, holding positions in AMC and NOK.
20 Plaintiff purchased those positions through Robinhood relying upon the continued availability of
21 the Robinhood platform and free trading of the securities.
22 21. Robinhood’s and Apex’s action to bar trading of those stocks (and interference in
23 the market for their free trade more generally) significantly damaged the value of Plaintiff’s
24 holdings in AMC and NOK. Upon news that Robinhood would not allow those stocks to be
25 purchased, only sold, their values fell precipitously.
26 22. This left Robinhood customers and retail investors with only two choices, either
27 sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or hold, and risk losing their entire investment.
28 23. Had Robinhood and Apex not taken this action, upon information and belief, vast
1745556.1 Case No.

-3-
COMPLAINT
1 amounts of investors were poised to invest in AMC and NOK, which would have led to the
2 increase in their value in the near term. These plans are well documented in investor forums
3 around the internet.
4 24. Robinhood’s and Apex’s actions to bar purchases of these stocks also disallowed
5 Plaintiff from executing plans to buy additional positions in AMC and NOK, during the barred
6 period, which would have been profitable.
7 25. Robinhood’s and Apex’s actions are without substantial justification, and made to
8 the detriment of its longstanding customers and the market. To the extent Robinhood or Apex
9 claims they intended to “protect” their retail customers, they in fact caused them great harm.
10 26. Upon information and belief, both Robinhood and Apex hold financial
11 relationships with large institutional investors who held short positions in the very stocks of which
12 they barred retail trading, to the financial benefit of the larger, institutional market players. Upon
13 information and belief, Robinhood and Apex caved to those pressures in making the decision to
14 bar trading of GME, AMC, NOK, and other similarly-situated stocks.
15 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16 27. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of Robinhood
17 customers (the “Robinhood Class"), and a putative class of investors (the “Investor Class”), who
18 are similarly situated under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
19 28. The Robinhood Class seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief, and is defined
20 as follows:
21  All persons or entities in the United States that held positions in AMC and NOK on
January 28, 2021, purchased through Robinhood, or who intended to invest in
22 AMC or NOK in the near future through Robinhood, and were harmed by
Robinhood’s actions described herein.
23
29. The Investor Class seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief, and is defined as
24
follows:
25
 All persons or entities in the United States that held positions in AMC and NOK on
26 January 28, 2021, who were harmed by the inability of retail customers to buy
positions in these stocks, or who had plans to invest in AMC or NOK within the
27 near future.
28 30. Upon information and belief, the Robinhood Class and Investor Class include
1745556.1 Case No.

-4-
COMPLAINT
1 millions of investors. The exact number and identities of the Robinhood Class is known or readily
2 ascertainable by Robinhood, and the exact number and identities of the Investor Class is readily
3 ascertainable by review of records as to stock ownership in these companies more generally. The
4 number of persons who fall within the definition of both classes is so numerous and
5 geographically dispersed as to make joinder of all members of the classes in their individual
6 capacity impracticable, inefficient, and unmanageable so as to effectively deny each putative
7 Robinhood Class and Investor Class member his, her, or their right to prosecute and obtain legal
8 and equitable relief based on the claims and allegations made in this Complaint.
9 31. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Robinhood Class, relating to
10 and/or dispositive of the allegations made in the Complaint, including, but not limited to:
11  Whether Robinhood has a fiduciary duty to its customers to not take actions that
will damage the value of their holdings;
12
 Whether Robinhood customers detrimentally relied on the ongoing availability of
13 the platform to trade in AMC and NOK stocks;
14  Whether Robinhood breached its contract with its customers by disallowing trading
in AMC and NOK;
15
 Whether Robinhood intentionally or negligently interfered with the prospective
16 economic advantage of the Robinhood Class;
17  Whether Robinhood unlawfully manipulated the price of AMC and NOK pursuant
to SEC Rule 10b;
18
 Whether Robinhood engaged in unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof.
19 Code § 17200 et seq. by restricting the buying of positions in AMC and NOK; and
20  Whether Robinhood violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act Unfair

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.) by restricting the buying of positions in AMC and
21 NOK.
22 32. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Investor Class, relating to
23 and/or dispositive of the allegations made in the Complaint, including, but not limited to:
24  Whether Apex unlawfully manipulated the price of AMC and NOK pursuant to
SEC Rule 10b;
25
 Whether Apex intentionally or negligently interfered with the prospective
26 economic advantage of the Investor Class; and
27  Whether Apex engaged in unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
17200 et seq. by restricting the buying of positions in AMC and NOK.
28
1745556.1 Case No.

-5-
COMPLAINT
1 33. The interests of Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class and Investor Class are aligned.
2 Plaintiff seeks to establish that Robinhood and Apex are liable for financial harm resulting from
3 the inability of Robinhood and other retail customers to trade in AMC and NOK. Should Plaintiff
4 prevail in establishing the same, each of the other members of the Robinhood Class and Investor
5 Class would then be entitled to similar compensation for the damages caused to them by the
6 inability of Robinhood and other retail customers to trade in AMC and NOK.
7 34. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Robinhood Class and
8 Investor Class. Plaintiff purchased positions in AMC and NOK through Robinhood, those
9 positions being harmed by the inability of Robinhood and other retail customers to trade in GME,
10 AMC, NOK, and other similarly-situated stocks. Like many others, Plaintiff also intended to
11 purchase further positions in AMC and NOK.
12 35. The Robinhood Class and Investor Class are represented by counsel who are
13 competent and experienced in the prosecution and defense of similar claims and litigation,
14 including class actions filed, prosecuted, defended, or litigated under California and federal law, in
15 California and federal courts, in connection with claims and certification of classes composed of
16 members who reside in California and/or the United States. Class counsel also has significant
17 experience related to securities.
18 36. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Robinhood Class
19 and Investor Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications
20 37. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Robinhood Class and
21 Investor Class predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting only individual members of
22 the Robinhood Class and Investor Class. Primarily at issue is the appropriateness of the actions of
23 Robinhood and Apex in relation to the retail investors in GME, AMC, NOK, and other similarly-
24 situated stocks.
25 38. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
26 adjudication of this controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit a large number of
27 similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,
28 efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions
1745556.1 Case No.

-6-
COMPLAINT
1 would engender. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the need for repetitious litigation—if
2 it were even feasible for the Robinhood Class or Investor Class to proceed individually.
3 39. Members of the Robinhood Class and the Investor Class have no cognizable
4 interest in individually litigating and controlling the claims asserted herein as a general matter.
5 40. California is a proper and desirable forum for the claims against Robinhood and
6 Apex to be litigated. Robinhood is based in California, and California law provides remedies to
7 each member of the Robinhood Class and Investor Class. As to those members of the Investor
8 Class residing outside California, California state law provides remedies consistent with that
9 which is available in the members’ home states.
10 41. The Robinhood Class and Investor Class are readily ascertainable by review of
11 Robinhood’s records, as to the Robinhood Class, and by review of those holding positions in
12 AMC and NOK, as to the Investor Class. Thus, there does not exist any significant likely
13 difficulties in managing the claims as a class action.
14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 (Breach of Contract)
16 42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
17 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 above.
18 43. Robinhood and Plaintiff (and the Robinhood Class) entered into contracts whereby
19 the Plaintiff and Robinhood Class were allowed to use the Robinhood platform to effectuate trades
20 in the stock market. In exchange for that ability, Robinhood earned compensation from the
21 Plaintiff and Robinhood Class in the form of fees, in addition to other valuable consideration.
22 44. Robinhood breached its agreement with Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class by
23 restricting their ability to trade in AMC and NOK. This restriction was without proper excuse or
24 justification.
25 45. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff’s and the Robinhood Class’s positions in AMC
26 and NOK have been substantially harmed.

27
28
1745556.1 Case No.

-7-
COMPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
5 47. Robinhood, by virtue of its contracts with Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class, had a
6 covenant of good faith and fair dealing under those contracts.
7 48. Robinhood violated that covenant by restricting the ability of Plaintiff and the
8 Robinhood Class to trade in AMC and NOK. This action was to the benefit of large institutional
9 investors holding significant short positions in these stocks, as opposed to Robinhood’s retail
10 customers.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
17 51. Robinhood, by virtue of its contracts with Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class, had a
18 fiduciary duty insofar as it relates to its customers.

19 52. Robinhood violated that duty by restricting the ability of Plaintiff and the
20 Robinhood Class to trade in AMC and NOK. This action was to the benefit of large institutional
21 investors holding significant short positions in these stocks, as opposed to Robinhood’s own
22 customers.
25 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 (Detrimental Reliance)
1745556.1 Case No.

-8-
COMPLAINT
1 55. Robinhood, by virtue of its contract with Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class,
2 established a reasonable expectation by Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class that Robinhood would
3 continue to allow trading in the stocks in which Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class purchased
4 positions.
5 56. Acting in reliance on that expectation, Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class purchased
6 positions in AMC and NOK.
7 57. Robinhood received and accepted consideration in the form of fees and other
8 valuable consideration in connection with these trades.
9 58. Robinhood then restricting the ability of Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class to trade
10 in AMC and NOK, causing substantial harm to the Plaintiff and the Robinhood Class.
11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
15 60. The Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and the Investor Class stood to make
16 significant profit by virtue of their holdings in and future purchases of AMC and NOK.
17 61. Robinhood and Apex intentionally interfered with future transactions in these
18 stocks whereby the Robinhood Class and the Investor Class stood to profit.
19 62. This interference artificially depressed the price of shares in AMC and NOK, by
20 not allowing retail customers to purchase these securities and sparking doubt about the security of
21 future trading in these securities.
22 63. Robinhood and Apex had actual knowledge that investors intended to enter into
23 transactions involving AMC and NOK, and upon information and belief, were in fact motivated
24 by that knowledge in restricting the trades.
25 64. This restriction of the ability of Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and the Investor
26 Class to trade in AMC and NOK caused substantial harm to Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and
27 the Investor Class.
28
1745556.1 Case No.

-9-
COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
5 66. The Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and the Investor Class stood to make
6 significant profit by virtue of their holdings in and future purchases of AMC and NOK.
7 67. Robinhood and Apex negligently interfered with future transactions in these stocks
8 whereby the Robinhood Class and the Investor Class stood to profit.
9 68. This interference artificially depressed the price of shares in AMC and NOK, by
10 not allowing retail customers to purchase these securities and sparking doubt about the security of
11 future trading.
12 69. Robinhood and Apex had actual knowledge that investors intended to enter into
13 transactions involving AMC and NOK, and upon information and belief, were in fact motivated
14 by that knowledge in restricting the trades.
15 70. This restriction of the ability of Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and the Investor
16 Class to trade in AMC and NOK caused substantial harm to Plaintiff, the Robinhood Class, and
17 the Investor Class.
18 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Violation of SEC Rule 10b)
22 72. Robinhood and Apex engaged in a scheme to defraud the market, and artificially
23 deflate the prices of AMC and NOK, in addition to other stocks (particularly GME) in which
24 institutional investors held large short positions.
25 73. This scheme was to the benefit of large institutional investors which, upon
26 information belief, Robinhood and Apex have financial relationships.

27 74. Upon information and belief, these large institutional investors exerted pressure on
28 Robinhood and Apex to halt trading in GME, AMC, and NOK, amongst other similarly-situated
1745556.1 Case No.

-10-
COMPLAINT
1 stocks.
2 75. This cessation of trading lowered the prices for these stocks not only because less
3 buyers were in the market with the retail market shut out, but by increasing fears related to market
4 security in the future trading of these securities.
5 76. This market manipulation damaged Plaintiff’s, the Robinhood Class’s, and the
6 Investor Class’s holdings in AMC and NOK.
7 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8 (Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.])
11 78. The aforementioned conduct by Robinhood and Apex is unlawful, violating
12 California and Federal securities law.
13 79. Plaintiff and each member of the Robinhood Class and Investor Class suffered an
14 injury as a direct and proximate result of Robinhood’s and Apex’s unlawful conduct.
15 80. Upon information and belief, the above-described unlawful conduct occurred in
16 significant portion within California.
17 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 (Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act Unfair [Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et
19 seq.])
22 82. Robinhood has committed unlawful acts as defined by California Civil Code §
23 1700, by engaging in the unlawful practices described above.
24 83. Plaintiff and each member of the Robinhood Class and Investor Class suffered an
25 injury as a direct and proximate result of Robinhood’s unlawful activity.
26 84. Unless enjoined, Robinhood will continue to unlawfully interfere in the market for
27 highly-shorted stocks, like AMC and NOK.
28 85. Upon information and belief, the above-described operations of Robinhood occur
1745556.1 Case No.

-11-
COMPLAINT
1 in California, where it is headquartered.
2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the putative Robinhood Class, and the putative Investor Class,
4 pray for relief against Robinhood and Apex as follows:
5 1. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Robinhood
6 and Apex from restraining or attempting to restrain anyone from trading in AMC or NOK, or other
7 securities with significant short positions;
8 2. For money damages in the form of the damaged value in AMC and NOK positions,
9 and future profitable acquisitions of AMC and NOK positions in an amount according to proof,
10 but well in excess of $5 million;
11 3. For punitive damages according to proof;
12 4. For pre-judgment interest on all damages awarded by this Court;
13 5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
14 6. For any other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
15 DATED: January 28, 2021 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS

16 Matthew L. Venezia
17 By: /s/ Matthew L. Venezia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1745556.1 Case No.

-12-
COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules of
3 Civil Procedure.
4 DATED: January 28, 2021 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS

6 By: /s/ Matthew L. Venezia
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1745556.1 Case No.

-13-
COMPLAINT
>G&75B8 -- #FRc' #"($"$"$ Case 4:21-cv-00696-KAW Document 1-1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 2
/5B58 /;B1> ?411@
HUR >G&75B8 -- PVcVY P\cR_ ÙRRa N[Q aUR V[S\_ZNaV\[ P\[aNV[RQ UR_RV[ [RVaUR_ _R]YNPR [\_ `b]]YRZR[a aUR SVYV[T N[Q `R_cVPR \S ]YRNQV[T` \_ \aUR_ ]N]R_` N` _R^bV_RQ Of YNd%
RePR]a N` ]_\cVQRQ Of Y\PNY _bYR` \S P\b_a' HUV` S\_Z% N]]_\cRQ V[ Va` \_VTV[NY S\_Z Of aUR >bQVPVNY 7\[SR_R[PR \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` V[ GR]aRZOR_ *20-% V` _R^bV_RQ S\_ aUR 7YR_X \S
7\b_a a\ V[VaVNaR aUR PVcVY Q\PXRa ÙRRa' (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
5' #F$ <8-5:@522? 0121:0-:@?
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; APEX CLEARING
ROBERT DAYS HOLDINGS LLC; AND APEX CLEARING CORPORATION.
#G$ 7\b[af \S FR`VQR[PR \S :V_à @VàRQ DYNV[aVSS Jackson County, MO 7\b[af \S FR`VQR[PR \S :V_à @VàRQ 8RSR[QN[a San Mateo County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
BCH93 =B @5B8 7CB89AB5H=CB 75G9G% IG9 H<9 @C75H=CB C:
H<9 HF57H C: @5B8 =BJC@J98'
#H$ 5aa\_[Rf` (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) 5aa\_[Rf` (If Known)
Matthew L. Venezia (State Bar No. 313812)
Browne George Ross O'Brien Annaguey & Ellis LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, California 90067
55' .-?5? ;2 6A>5?05/@5;: (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 555' /5@5E1:?45< ;2 <>5:/5<-8 <->@51? (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
<@2 012 <@2 012
* I'G' ;\cR_[ZR[a DYNV[aVSS , :RQR_NY EbRàV\[ 7VaVgR[ \S HUV` GaNaR * * =[P\_]\_NaRQ or D_V[PV]NY DYNPR - -
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
\S 6b`V[R`` =[ HUV` GaNaR
7VaVgR[ \S 5[\aUR_ GaNaR + + =[P\_]\_NaRQ and D_V[PV]NY DYNPR . .
+ I'G' ;\cR_[ZR[a 8RSR[QN[a - 8VcR_`Vaf \S 6b`V[R`` =[ 5[\aUR_ GaNaR
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
7VaVgR[ \_ GbOWRPa \S N , , :\_RVT[ BNaV\[ / /
:\_RVT[ 7\b[a_f
5B' :-@A>1 ;2 ?A5@ (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

/;:@>-/@ @;>@? 2;>215@A>1(<1:-8@D .-:7>A<@/D ;@41> ?@-@A@1?
**) =[`b_N[PR <1>?;:-8 5:6A>D <1>?;:-8 5:6A>D /+. 8_bT FRYNaRQ GRVgb_R \S -++ 5]]RNY +1 IG7 h *.1 ,0. :NY`R 7YNVZ` 5Pa
*+) AN_V[R D_\]R_af +* IG7 h 11* -+, KVaUQ_NdNY +1 IG7 ,0/ EbV HNZ #,* IG7
,*) 5V_]YN[R ,/. DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f i D_\QbPa
*,) AVYYR_ 5Pa @VNOVYVaf /2) CaUR_ h *.0 h ,0+2#N$$
,*. 5V_]YN[R D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf
*-) BRT\aVNOYR =[à_bZR[a ,/0 <RNYaU 7N_R( 8-.;> <>;<1>@D >534@? -)) GaNaR FRN]]\_aV\[ZR[a
,+) 5``NbYa% @VORY " GYN[QR_
*.) FRP\cR_f \S DUN_ZNPRbaVPNY DR_`\[NY -*) 5[aVa_bà
,,) :RQR_NY 9Z]Y\fR_`l 0*) :NV_ @NO\_ GaN[QN_Q` 5Pa 1+) 7\]f_VTUa`
CcR_]NfZR[a CS =[Wb_f D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf -,) 6N[X` N[Q 6N[XV[T
@VNOVYVaf 0+) @NO\_(AN[NTRZR[a 1,) DNaR[a
JRaR_N[l` 6R[RSVa` ,/1 5ÒRà\` DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f -.) 7\ZZR_PR
,-) AN_V[R FRYNaV\[` 1,. DNaR[an5OO_RcVNaRQ BRd
*.* ARQVPN_R 5Pa D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf
,-. AN_V[R D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf 0-) FNVYdNf @NO\_ 5Pa 8_bT 5]]YVPNaV\[ -/) 8R]\_aNaV\[
*.+ FRP\cR_f \S 8RSNbYaRQ <1>?;:-8 <>;<1>@D -0) FNPXRaRR_ =[SYbR[PRQ "
,.) A\a\_ JRUVPYR 0.* :NZVYf N[Q ARQVPNY 1-) H_NQRZN_X
GabQR[a @\N[` #9ePYbQR` ,0) CaUR_ :_NbQ 7\__b]a C_TN[VgNaV\[`
,.. A\a\_ JRUVPYR D_\QbPa @RNcR 5Pa 11) 8RSR[Q H_NQR GRP_Ra`
JRaR_N[`$ ,0* H_baU V[ @R[QV[T
@VNOVYVaf 02) CaUR_ @NO\_ @VaVTNaV\[ 5Pa \S +)*/ -1) 7\[`bZR_ 7_RQVa
*., FRP\cR_f \S ,1) CaUR_ DR_`\[NY D_\]R_af
,/) CaUR_ DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f 02* 9Z]Y\fRR FRaV_RZR[a -1. HRYR]U\[R 7\[`bZR_
CcR_]NfZR[a ?;/5-8 ?1/A>5@D
8NZNTR =[P\ZR GRPb_Vaf 5Pa D_\aRPaV\[ 5Pa
\S JRaR_N[l` 6R[RSVa` ,/+ DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f &ARQVPNY 1/* <=5 #*,2.SS$
ANY]_NPaVPR ,1. D_\]R_af 8NZNTR D_\QbPa -2) 7NOYR(GNa HJ
*/) Ga\PXU\YQR_`l GbVa` @VNOVYVaf 59953>-@5;: 1/+ 6YNPX @b[T #2+,$ 1.) GRPb_VaVR`(7\ZZ\QVaVR`(
*2) CaUR_ 7\[a_NPa -/+ BNab_NYVgNaV\[ 1/, 8=K7(8=KK #-).#T$$ 9ePUN[TR
/5B58 >534@? <>5?;:1> <1@5@5;:?
*2. 7\[a_NPa D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf 5]]YVPNaV\[ 1/- GG=8 HVaYR LJ=
--) CaUR_ 7VcVY FVTUa` 12) CaUR_ GaNaba\_f 5PaV\[`
4-.1-? /;><A? -/. CaUR_ =ZZVT_NaV\[
*2/ :_N[PUV`R 1/. FG= #-).#T$$ 12* 5T_VPbYab_NY 5Pa`
--* J\aV[T -/, 5YVR[ 8RaNV[RR 5PaV\[`
>1-8 <>;<1>@D --+ 9Z]Y\fZR[a 2101>-8 @-C ?A5@? 12, 9[cV_\[ZR[aNY ANaaR_`
.*) A\aV\[` a\ JNPNaR
+*) @N[Q 7\[QRZ[NaV\[ --, <\b`V[T( GR[aR[PR 10) HNeR` #I'G' DYNV[aVSS \_ 12. :_RRQ\Z \S =[S\_ZNaV\[
5PP\ZZ\QNaV\[` 8RSR[QN[a$ 5Pa
++) :\_RPY\`b_R .,) ;R[R_NY
--. 5ZR_' d(8V`NOVYVaVRì 10* =FGiHUV_Q DN_af +/ IG7 12/ 5_OVa_NaV\[
+,) FR[a @RN`R " 9WRPaZR[a .,. 8RNaU DR[NYaf
9Z]Y\fZR[a h 0/)2 122 5QZV[Và_NaVcR D_\PRQb_R
+-) H\_a` a\ @N[Q ;@41>
--/ 5ZR_' d(8V`NOVYVaVRìCaUR_ 5Pa(FRcVRd \_ 5]]RNY \S
+-. H\_a D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf .-) AN[QNZb` " CaUR_ 5TR[Pf 8RPV`V\[
+2) 5YY CaUR_ FRNY D_\]R_af --1 9QbPNaV\[
..) 7VcVY FVTUa` 2.) 7\[àVabaV\[NYVaf \S GaNaR
... D_V`\[ 7\[QVaV\[ GaNabaR`
./) 7VcVY 8RaNV[RRi
7\[QVaV\[` \S
7\[SV[RZR[a
B' ;>535: (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

* C_VTV[NY + FRZ\cRQ S_\Z , FRZN[QRQ S_\Z - FRV[àNaRQ \_ . H_N[`SR__RQ S_\Z / AbYaVQVà_VPa 1 AbYaVQVà_VPa
D_\PRRQV[T GaNaR 7\b_a 5]]RYYNaR 7\b_a FR\]R[RQ 5[\aUR_ 8Và_VPa (specify) @VaVTNaV\[iH_N[`SR_ @VaVTNaV\[i8V_RPa :VYR
B5' /-A?1 ;2 7VaR aUR I'G' 7VcVY GaNabaR b[QR_ dUVPU f\b N_R SVYV[T (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)3
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)
-/@5;:
6_VRS QR`P_V]aV\[ \S PNb`R3
Claims stemming from cessation of trading in certain stocks by Robinhood and Apex.
B55' >1=A1?@10 5: 7<97? =: H<=G =G 5 /8-?? -/@5;: 019-:0 " 7<97? M9G \[Yf VS QRZN[QRQ V[ P\Z]YNV[a3
/;9<8-5:@, IB89F FI@9 +,% :RQ' F' 7Vc' D' 6A>D 019-:0, MR` B\
B555' >18-@10 /-?1#?$% >I8;9 8C7?9H BIA69F

52 -:D (See instructions):
5C' 05B5?5;:-8 -??53:91:@ #/N[NQ 8THFQ >ZQJ *&)$
#<QFHJ FS _C` NS ;SJ .T\ ;SQ]$ ?-: 2>-:/5?/;(;-78-:0 ?-: 6;?1 1A>17-&9/75:81DB5881
0-@1 01/28/2021 ?53:-@A>1 ;2 -@@;>:1D ;2 >1/;>0 /s/ Matthew L. Venezia

>G&75B8 -- #_Rc' #"($"$"$Case 4:21-cv-00696-KAW Document 1-1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 2
5:?@>A/@5;:? 2;> -@@;>:1D? /;9<81@5:3 /5B58 /;B1> ?411@ 2;>9 6?&/-:0 ++
-ZYMTWNY] 2TW /N[NQ /T[JW ?MJJY' HUR >G&75B8 -- PVcVY P\cR_ ÙRRa N[Q aUR V[S\_ZNaV\[ P\[aNV[RQ UR_RV[ [RVaUR_ _R]YNPR` [\_ `b]]YRZR[a` aUR SVYV[T` N[Q
`R_cVPR \S ]YRNQV[T \_ \aUR_ ]N]R_` N` _R^bV_RQ Of YNd% RePR]a N` ]_\cVQRQ Of Y\PNY _bYR` \S P\b_a' HUV` S\_Z% N]]_\cRQ V[ Va` \_VTV[NY S\_Z Of aUR >bQVPVNY
7\[SR_R[PR \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` V[ GR]aRZOR_ *20-% V` _R^bV_RQ S\_ aUR 7YR_X \S 7\b_a a\ V[VaVNaR aUR PVcVY Q\PXRa ÙRRa' 7\[`R^bR[aYf% N PVcVY P\cR_ ÙRRa V`
`bOZVaaRQ a\ aUR 7YR_X \S 7\b_a S\_ RNPU PVcVY P\Z]YNV[a SVYRQ' HUR Naa\_[Rf SVYV[T N PN`R Ù\bYQ P\Z]YRaR aUR S\_Z N` S\YY\d`3
5' F$ <QFNSYNKKX&0JKJSIFSYX' 9[aR_ [NZR` #YNà% SV_à% ZVQQYR V[VaVNY$ \S ]YNV[aVSS N[Q QRSR[QN[a' =S aUR ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a V` N T\cR_[ZR[a NTR[Pf% b`R
\[Yf aUR SbYY [NZR \_ àN[QN_Q NOO_RcVNaV\[`' =S aUR ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a V` N[ \SSVPVNY dVaUV[ N T\cR_[ZR[a NTR[Pf% VQR[aVSf SV_à aUR NTR[Pf N[Q
aUR[ aUR \SSVPVNY% TVcV[T O\aU [NZR N[Q aVaYR'
G$ /TZSY] TK >JXNIJSHJ' :\_ RNPU PVcVY PN`R SVYRQ% RePR]a I'G' ]YNV[aVSS PN`R`% R[aR_ aUR [NZR \S aUR P\b[af dUR_R aUR SV_à YVàRQ ]YNV[aVSS _R`VQR` Na aUR
aVZR \S SVYV[T' =[ I'G' ]YNV[aVSS PN`R`% R[aR_ aUR [NZR \S aUR P\b[af V[ dUVPU aUR SV_à YVàRQ QRSR[QN[a _R`VQR` Na aUR aVZR \S SVYV[T' #BCH93 =[ YN[Q
P\[QRZ[NaV\[ PN`R`% aUR P\b[af \S _R`VQR[PR \S aUR jQRSR[QN[ak V` aUR Y\PNaV\[ \S aUR a_NPa \S YN[Q V[c\YcRQ'$
H$ -YYTWSJ]X' 9[aR_ aUR SV_Z [NZR% NQQ_R``% aRYR]U\[R [bZOR_% N[Q Naa\_[Rf \S _RP\_Q' =S aUR_R N_R `RcR_NY Naa\_[Rf`% YVà aURZ \[ N[ NaaNPUZR[a% [\aV[T
V[ aUV` `RPaV\[ j#`RR NaaNPUZR[a$'k
55' 6ZWNXINHYNTS' HUR ON`V` \S Wb_V`QVPaV\[ V` `Ra S\_aU b[QR_ :RQR_NY FbYR \S 7VcVY D_\PRQb_R 1#N$% dUVPU _R^bV_R` aUNa Wb_V`QVPaV\[` OR Ù\d[ V[
]YRNQV[T`' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ \[R \S aUR O\eR`' =S aUR_R V` Z\_R aUN[ \[R ON`V` \S Wb_V`QVPaV\[% ]_RPRQR[PR V` TVcR[ V[ aUR \_QR_ Ù\d[ ORY\d'
#*$ I[VaRQ GaNaR` ]YNV[aVSS' >b_V`QVPaV\[ ON`RQ \[ +1 IG7 hh *,-. N[Q *,-1' GbVa` Of NTR[PVR` N[Q \SSVPR_` \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` N_R V[PYbQRQ UR_R'
#+$ I[VaRQ GaNaR` QRSR[QN[a' KUR[ aUR ]YNV[aVSS V` `bV[T aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`% Va` \SSVPR_` \_ NTR[PVR`% ]YNPR N[ jLk V[ aUV` O\e'
#,$ :RQR_NY ^bRàV\[' HUV` _RSR_` a\ `bVa` b[QR_ +1 IG7 h *,,*% dUR_R Wb_V`QVPaV\[ N_V`R` b[QR_ aUR 7\[àVabaV\[ \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`% N[ NZR[QZR[a
a\ aUR 7\[àVabaV\[% N[ NPa \S 7\[T_R`` \_ N a_RNaf \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`' =[ PN`R` dUR_R aUR I'G' V` N ]N_af% aUR I'G' ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a P\QR
aNXR` ]_RPRQR[PR% N[Q O\e * \_ + Ù\bYQ OR ZN_XRQ'
#-$ 8VcR_`Vaf \S PVaVgR[ÙV]' HUV` _RSR_` a\ `bVa` b[QR_ +1 IG7 h *,,+% dUR_R ]N_aVR` N_R PVaVgR[` \S QVSSR_R[a àNaR`' KUR[ 6\e - V` PURPXRQ% aUR
PVaVgR[ÙV] \S aUR QVSSR_R[a ]N_aVR` Zbà OR PURPXRQ' #GRR GRPaV\[ === ORY\d4 :;@1, KJIJWFQ VZJXYNTS FHYNTSX YFPJ UWJHJIJSHJ T[JW IN[JWXNY]
HFXJX'$
555' >JXNIJSHJ #HNYN^JSXMNU$ TK <WNSHNUFQ <FWYNJX' HUV` `RPaV\[ \S aUR >G&75B8 -- V` a\ OR P\Z]YRaRQ VS QVcR_`Vaf \S PVaVgR[ÙV] dN` V[QVPNaRQ NO\cR'
AN_X aUV` `RPaV\[ S\_ RNPU ]_V[PV]NY ]N_af'
5B' :FYZWJ TK ?ZNY' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ aUR N]]_\]_VNaR O\e' =S aUR [Nab_R \S `bVa PN[[\a OR QRaR_ZV[RQ% OR `b_R aUR PNb`R \S NPaV\[% V[ GRPaV\[ J= ORY\d% V`
`bSSVPVR[a a\ R[NOYR aUR QR]baf PYR_X \_ aUR àNaVàVPNY PYR_X#`$ V[ aUR 5QZV[Và_NaVcR CSSVPR a\ QRaR_ZV[R aUR [Nab_R \S `bVa' =S aUR PNb`R SVa` Z\_R aUN[
\[R [Nab_R \S `bVa% `RYRPa aUR Z\à QRSV[VaVcR'
B' ;WNLNS' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ \[R \S aUR `Ve O\eR`'
#*$ C_VTV[NY D_\PRRQV[T`' 7N`R` \_VTV[NaV[T V[ aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` QVà_VPa P\b_a`'
#+$ FRZ\cRQ S_\Z GaNaR 7\b_a' D_\PRRQV[T` V[VaVNaRQ V[ àNaR P\b_a` ZNf OR _RZ\cRQ a\ aUR QVà_VPa P\b_a` b[QR_ HVaYR +1 IG7 h *--*' KUR[ aUR
]RaVaV\[ S\_ _RZ\cNY V` T_N[aRQ% PURPX aUV` O\e'
#,$ FRZN[QRQ S_\Z 5]]RYYNaR 7\b_a' 7URPX aUV` O\e S\_ PN`R` _RZN[QRQ a\ aUR QVà_VPa P\b_a S\_ Sb_aUR_ NPaV\[' I`R aUR QNaR \S _RZN[Q N` aUR SVYV[T
QNaR'
#-$ FRV[àNaRQ \_ FR\]R[RQ' 7URPX aUV` O\e S\_ PN`R` _RV[àNaRQ \_ _R\]R[RQ V[ aUR QVà_VPa P\b_a' I`R aUR _R\]R[V[T QNaR N` aUR SVYV[T QNaR'
#.$ H_N[`SR__RQ S_\Z 5[\aUR_ 8Và_VPa' :\_ PN`R` a_N[`SR__RQ b[QR_ HVaYR +1 IG7 h *-)-#N$' 8\ [\a b`R aUV` S\_ dVaUV[ QVà_VPa a_N[`SR_` \_
ZbYaVQVà_VPa YVaVTNaV\[ a_N[`SR_`'
#/$ AbYaVQVà_VPa @VaVTNaV\[ H_N[`SR_' 7URPX aUV` O\e dUR[ N ZbYaVQVà_VPa PN`R V` a_N[`SR__RQ V[a\ aUR QVà_VPa b[QR_ NbaU\_Vaf \S HVaYR +1 IG7
h *-)0' KUR[ aUV` O\e V` PURPXRQ% Q\ [\a PURPX #.$ NO\cR'
#1$ AbYaVQVà_VPa @VaVTNaV\[ 8V_RPa :VYR' 7URPX aUV` O\e dUR[ N ZbYaVQVà_VPa YVaVTNaV\[ PN`R V` SVYRQ V[ aUR `NZR QVà_VPa N` aUR ANàR_ A8@ Q\PXRa'
DYRN`R [\aR aUNa aUR_R V` [\ C_VTV[ 7\QR 0' C_VTV[ 7\QR 0 dN` b`RQ S\_ UVà\_VPNY _RP\_Q` N[Q V` [\ Y\[TR_ _RYRcN[a QbR a\ PUN[TR` V[ àNabaR'
B5' /FZXJ TK -HYNTS' FR]\_a aUR PVcVY àNabaR QV_RPaYf _RYNaRQ a\ aUR PNb`R \S NPaV\[ N[Q TVcR N O_VRS QR`P_V]aV\[ \S aUR PNb`R' 0T STY HNYJ OZWNXINHYNTSFQ
XYFYZYJX ZSQJXX IN[JWXNY]' 9eNZ]YR3 I'G' 7VcVY GaNabaR3 -0 IG7 h ..,' 6_VRS 8R`P_V]aV\[3 I[NbaU\_VgRQ _RPR]aV\[ \S PNOYR `R_cVPR'
B55' >JVZJXYJI NS /TRUQFNSY' 7YN`` 5PaV\[' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ aUV` O\e VS f\b N_R SVYV[T N PYN`` NPaV\[ b[QR_ :RQR_NY FbYR \S 7VcVY D_\PRQb_R +,'
8RZN[Q' =[ aUV` `]NPR R[aR_ aUR NPabNY Q\YYN_ NZ\b[a ORV[T QRZN[QRQ \_ V[QVPNaR \aUR_ QRZN[Q% `bPU N` N ]_RYVZV[N_f V[Wb[PaV\['
>b_f 8RZN[Q' 7URPX aUR N]]_\]_VNaR O\e a\ V[QVPNaR dURaUR_ \_ [\a N Wb_f V` ORV[T QRZN[QRQ'
B555' >JQFYJI /FXJX' HUV` `RPaV\[ \S aUR >G&75B8 -- V` b`RQ a\ VQR[aVSf _RYNaRQ ]R[QV[T PN`R`% VS N[f' =S aUR_R N_R _RYNaRQ ]R[QV[T PN`R`% V[`R_a aUR Q\PXRa
[bZOR_` N[Q aUR P\__R`]\[QV[T WbQTR [NZR` S\_ `bPU PN`R`'
5C' 0N[NXNTSFQ -XXNLSRJSY' =S aUR BNab_R \S GbVa V` b[QR_ D_\]R_af FVTUa` \_ D_V`\[R_ DRaVaV\[` \_ aUR ZNaaR_ V` N GRPb_VaVR` 7YN`` 5PaV\[% YRNcR aUV`
`RPaV\[ OYN[X' :\_ NYY \aUR_ PN`R`% VQR[aVSf aUR QVcV`V\[NY cR[bR NPP\_QV[T a\ 7VcVY @\PNY FbYR ,&+3 jaUR P\b[af V[ dUVPU N `bOàN[aVNY ]N_a \S aUR
RcR[a` \_ \ZV``V\[` dUVPU TVcR _V`R a\ aUR PYNVZ \PPb__RQ \_ V[ dUVPU N `bOàN[aVNY ]N_a \S aUR ]_\]R_af aUNa V` aUR `bOWRPa \S aUR NPaV\[ V` `VabNaRQ'k
0FYJ FSI -YYTWSJ] ?NLSFYZWJ' 8NaR N[Q `VT[ aUR PVcVY P\cR_ ÙRRa'

Case No. Complaint

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case No. Complaint

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 4:21-cv-00696-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 14

1 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 ROBERT DAYS, Case No.

12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR

23 Trial Date: None Set

1745556.1 Case No.

5 (“Apex”), and alleges as follows:

13 Menlo Park, California.

16 Menlo Park, California.

23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1745556.1 Case No.

2 related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3 8. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, upon

13 place trades by California customers, as is at issue in this case.

20 partners with Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on Robinhood’s platform.

24 stocks discussed herein.

1745556.1 Case No.

12 allow “limited buys of these securities” starting on January 29, 2021.

16 market to be available in the securities.

21 the Robinhood platform and free trading of the securities.

25 purchased, only sold, their values fell precipitously.

1745556.1 Case No.

3 around the internet.

6 period, which would have been profitable.

14 bar trading of GME, AMC, NOK, and other similarly-situated stocks.

15 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

1745556.1 Case No.

6 capacity impracticable, inefficient, and unmanageable so as to effectively deny each putative

20  Whether Robinhood violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act Unfair

1745556.1 Case No.

11 purchase further positions in AMC and NOK.

17 experience related to securities.

1745556.1 Case No.

9 which is available in the members’ home states.

13 difficulties in managing the claims as a class action.

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

17 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 above.

26 and NOK have been substantially harmed.

1745556.1 Case No.

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 above.

6 covenant of good faith and fair dealing under those contracts.

12 and NOK have been substantially harmed.

13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

16 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 above.

18 fiduciary duty insofar as it relates to its customers.

24 and NOK have been substantially harmed.

25 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53 above.

1745556.1 Case No.

6 positions in AMC and NOK.

8 valuable consideration in connection with these trades.

11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 above.

21 future trading in these securities.

24 by that knowledge in restricting the trades.

1745556.1 Case No.

1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 above.

14 by that knowledge in restricting the trades.

17 the Investor Class.