Florida Class Action - Robinhood

Case 0:21-cv-60226-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 1 of 15
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC

Caroline H. Miller, Esq.
Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1310
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 946-1884
Fax: (305) 503-6741
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
________________________________________
PETER FRAY, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
v.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC Plaintiff Demands a

ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC Trial by Jury
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Peter Fray (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) sues Defendant ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,
(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm.
2. Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed the stock “GME” and
other stocks from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise, thereby depriving
retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market.
1
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff was and is a citizen of the State of Florida.
4. Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. It is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc. Robinhood Financial LLC is registered as a broker-dealer
with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC
acts as an introducing broker and has a clearing arrangement with its affiliate Defendant
Robinhood Securities, LLC.
5. Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida 32746. It is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. Defendant Robinhood Securities,
LLC is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC. Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC acts as a
clearing broker and clears trades introduced by its affiliate Defendant Robinhood Financial.
6. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. Defendant Robinhood
Markets, Inc. is the corporate parent of Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood
Securities, LLC.
7. The above-named corporate defendants herein referred to collectively as
“Robinhood.”
8. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2). The aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class and subclass(es) are in
excess of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and there are more than 100 putative class
members. Many members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different from Defendant.
2
9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action because
a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this
District where Robinhood, distributed, marketed, advertised, and sold the trading services which
are the subject of the present complaint. Finally, venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to
28 USC § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts and omissions that gave rise to this
Complaint occurred or emanated from this District.
10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Robinhood because it is authorized to do
business and does conduct business in Florida, and because it has specifically marketed,
advertised, and made substantial sales in Florida, and has sufficient minimum contacts with this
state and/or sufficiently avails itself of the markets of this state through its promotion, sales, and
marketing within this state to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm. Its customers place securities trades
through the firm’s website, by using a web-based application (or “app”). Robinhood permits
customers to purchase and sell securities, including futures contracts.
12. Robinhood has experienced significant growth as a relatively new online brokerage
firm. In 2019, Robinhood raised $323 million in funding at a $7.6 billion valuation. The firm
markets itself primarily to younger investors and claims over 10 million users of its trading app.
13. On or about March 23, 2016, Robinhood’s official Twitter account stated: “Let the
people trade.” They have since disregarded their mantra and have blocked access for millions of
its customers to trade particular securities.
14. On or around January 11, 2021, stocks in GameStop Corp. (“GME”) began to rise.
15. At that time, Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market.
3
16. On or about January 27, 2021 Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of GME and
deprived their customers of the ability to use their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and
knowingly pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no longer buy or even
search for GME on Robinhood’s app.
17. Upon information and belief, Robinhood’s actions were done purposefully and
knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were
not Robinhood’s customers.
18. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have gone up, depriving
investors of potential gains.
19. Additionally, in the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of
“shorting” GME in the hopes the price drops.
20. In sum, Robinhood has completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing
GME for no legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the benefits of
Robinhood’s services.
21. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), which governs brokers
like Robinhood, espouses rule 5310 regarding “Best Execution and Interpositioning.” Rule
5310.01 requires that Robinhood “must make every effort to execute a marketable customer order
that it receives promptly and fully.” By failing to respond at all to customers’ placing timely
trades—and outright blocking customers from trading a security—Robinhood has breached these,
among other, obligations and caused its customers substantial losses due solely to its own
negligence and failure to maintain adequate infrastructure.
22. Robinhood continues to randomly pull other securities from its app for no
legitimate reason.
4
23. Upon information and belief, Robinhood is pulling securities like GME from its
platform in order to slow growth and help benefit individuals and institutions who are not
Robinhood customers but are Robinhood large institutional investors or potential investors.
Plaintiff’s Experience:
24. On the morning on January 28, 2021, Plaintiff used his Robinhood app, searched
for GME and other securities on Robinhood’s app, and found they were unavailable. The stocks
did not even appear, although GME and other securities are publicly traded companies available
on all other platforms.
25. Plaintiff intended to purchase GME and other stocks from Robinhood’s app and
was deprived of the ability due to Robinhood’s actions.
26. Thus, Plaintiff, like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
27. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the
following Class, as defined below:
All Robinhood customers within the United States.
28. Additionally, or in the alternative, Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Subclass, as defined below:
All Robinhood customers within the United States who were not able to
execute trades on GME after Robinhood knowingly, willfully, and
purposefully removed it completely from their platform.
29. Additionally, or in the alterative, Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Class, as defined below:
All Robinhood customers within the State of Florida.
5
30. Additionally, or in the alternative, Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Subclass, as defined below:
All Robinhood customers within the State of Florida who were not able to
execute trades on GME and other securities after Robinhood knowingly,
willfully, and purposefully removed completely from their platform.
31. Excluded from the Class are the Robinhood entities and their current employees, counsel
for either party, as well as the Court and its personnel presiding over this action.
32. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action against
Robinhood pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
33. Numerosity: The precise number of members of the proposed Class is unknown to
Plaintiff at this time, but, based on information and belief, Class members are so numerous
that their individual joinder herein is impracticable. Based on information and belief and
publicly available reports, Class members number in the hundreds of thousands and up to
ten million. Subclass members are likely in the thousands. All Class and Subclass members
may be notified of the pendency of this action by reference to Robinhood’s records, or by
other alternative means.
34. Commonality: Numerous questions of law or fact are common to the claims of Plaintiff
and members of the proposed Class. These common questions of law and fact exist as to
all Class members and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class
members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to the
following:
a. Whether Robinhood knowingly failed to provide the financial services that were
needed to handle reasonable consumer demand, including trading securities that are
available on every other competitive trading platform;

6
b. Whether Robinhood failed to provide the duty of care to their customers when they
purposefully removed GME;
c. Whether Robinhood removed GME purposefully to harm their customers’
positions in GME and benefit their own potential financial gains;
d. Whether Robinhood violated FINRA Rule 5310, among other FINRA rules, state
rules, and federal regulations;
e. Whether Robinhood violated consumer protection laws in failing to disclose that
its services would not include the ability to trade on GME, and other securities, for
substantial periods of time;
f. Whether Robinhood was in breach of its legal, regulatory, and licensing
requirements by failing to provide adequate access to financial services;
g. Whether Robinhood was in breach of its contracts and/or the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing in connection with its failure to provide financial
services;
h. Whether Robinhood was negligent or grossly negligent by failing to provide
financial services in a timely manner due to its own possible nefarious desires;
i. Whether Robinhood breached its fiduciary duties to customers by failing to provide
adequate access to financial services;
j. Whether Robinhood was unjustly enriched by its conduct;
k. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members were injured by Robinhood’s
conduct, and if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages, restitution, and
other appropriate relief, including injunctive relief.
7
l. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to injunctive and
declaratory relief.
35. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed
Class in that the named Plaintiff was a customer during the class period and was unable to
trade GME and place time-sensitive trades on GME and sustained damages as a result of
Robinhood’s wrongful conduct.
36. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of
the Class in that he has no conflicts with any other Class members. Plaintiff has retained
competent counsel experienced in prosecuting complex class actions, including those
involving financial services, and they will vigorously litigate this class action.
37. Predominance and Superiority: There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than
by maintenance of this class action. A class action is superior to other available means, if
any, for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Prosecution of separate
actions by individual Class members would create the risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant.
Additionally, given the relatively modest damages sustained by most individual Class
members, few, if any, proposed Class members could or would sustain the economic
burden of pursuing individual remedies for Robinhood’s wrongful conduct. Treatment as
a class action will achieve substantial economies of time, effort, and expense, and provide
comprehensive and uniform supervision by a single court. This class action presents no
material difficulties in management.
38. Class action certification is warranted under Fed. R. Civ P. 23(b)(1)(A) because the
prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed Class would create
8
a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members,
which may produce incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. 34. Class action
certification is warranted under Fed. R. Civ P. 23(b)(1)(B) because the prosecution of
separate actions by individual members of the proposed Class would create a risk of
adjudications with respect to individual Class members which may, as a practical matter,
be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or
substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
39. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive or equitable relief pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are met as Robinhood has acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive, declaratory, or equitable
relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. 36. Class action certification is also
warranted under Fed. R. Civ P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact common to the
Class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a
Class action is superior to other available remedies for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this controversy. The amount of damages available to the individual Plaintiff is
insufficient to make litigation addressing Robinhood’s conduct economically feasible for
most in the absence of the class action procedure. Individualized litigation also presents a
potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense
to all parties and the court system presented by the legal and factual issues of the case. By
contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides
the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by
a single court.
9
40. Class action certification is also warranted under Fed. R. Civ P. 23(c)(4) because questions
of law or fact common to the Class members may be certified and decided by this Court
on a class wide basis.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
41. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the factual allegations set forth
above.
42. In order to use the Robinhood trading platform, a potential customer must enter into the
Customer Agreement with Robinhood.
43. Plaintiff and all class members did enter into a Customer Agreement with Robinhood.
44. Robinhood breached its Customer Agreement by, among other things, failing to disclose
that its platform was going to randomly pull a profitable stock from its platform; that
Robinhood failed to provide adequate explanation to their customers; that Robinhood
knowingly put their customers at a disadvantage compared to customers who used other
trading apps; that Robinhood failed to provide access to its own financial incentives to
pull certain securities including GME; that Robinhood’s prohibited plaintiffs from
performing in a timely manner (or at all) under the contract; that Robinhood failed to
comply with all applicable legal, regulatory, and licensing requirements; and that
Robinhood failed to exercise trades and actions requested by customers.
45. As such, Robinhood breached its Customer Agreement with Plaintiff and Class members.
46. Robinhood’s failure to perform and its breaches of the Customer Agreement resulted in
damages and losses to Plaintiff and Class members and continues to expose them to harm
because Robinhood continues to fail to perform under the Customer Agreement. These
10
losses reflect damages to Plaintiff and Class members in an amount to be determined at
trial or separate proceedings as necessary.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands trial by jury and requests this Court to:
a. Enter an immediate injunction requiring Robinhood to reinstatement GME and
other stocks on their trading platform;
b. Enter an award for plaintiffs to be determined;
c. Enter an award for attorneys fees and costs;
d. Enter an award for punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and reckless behavior
of Defendants;
e. Any other relief this Court deems just and fit.
COUNT II
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the factual allegations set forth above.
48. Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass entered into the Customer Agreement
with Defendant Robinhood to open a Robinhood trading account. They agreed to
Robinhood’s Terms and Conditions by using Robinhood’s website and trading platform.
49. Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass fulfilled their obligations under these
contracts by adhering to their terms and using Robinhood’s trading services through its
website and trading platform.
50. Robinhood was obligated to provide the trading services required under those contracts at
all times, including but not limited to, trades for GME.
51. When initially signing up for Robinhood, Plaintiff and all those similarly situated could
and most actually did trade GME.
11
52. Robinhood unfairly interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class and
Subclass to receive the benefits of the Customer Agreement by, among other things, (i)
failing to provide services necessary to carry out a trade; (ii) failing to provide certain
trading services whatsoever; (iii) failing to inform individuals in a timely member of the
drastic changes in trading abilities; and (iv) prohibiting plaintiffs from buying GME for
Robinhood’s own pecuniary interest and not disclosing those interest to Plaintiffs and all
Class and Subclass members.
53. Robinhood’s conduct has caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass harm,
losses, and damages. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiffs and members of the Class
and Subclass in an amount to be determined at trial or separate proceedings as necessary.
a. Enter an immediate injunction requiring Robinhood to reinstatement GME and
other stocks on their trading platform;
d. Enter an award for punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and reckless behavior
of Defendants;
COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE
54. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the factual allegations set forth above.
Robinhood had a duty to exercise reasonable care in conducting and facilitating
transactions for its customers.
12
55. Robinhood had a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing trades on the free, open
market for its customers.
56. Robinhood unlawfully breached its duties by, among other things, (i) removed GME
without notice from its trading app; (ii) failed to provide financial services related to
GME; (iii) failing to notify customers in a timely manner of the GME “blackout.
57. Robinhood’s conduct as set forth in this Complaint was want of even scant care, and its
acts and omissions were and continue to be an extreme departure from the ordinary
standard of conduct. Their actions breach any duty of care to their customers, but are also
inconsistent with the standard of care expected from similar firms in the open market.
58. Upon information and belief, no institutions similar to Robinhood has ever outright
banned customers from purchasing a specific share of a specific security.
59. Robinhood essentially abandoned its customers altogether by pulling GME, a standard of
care so far below what is required for a business engaging in time sensitive trading
services that it amounts to a complete abandonment of its duties.
60. Robinhood’s grossly negligent and wrongful breaches of its duties owed to Plaintiffs and
members of the Class and Subclass proximately caused losses and damages that would not
have occurred but for Robinhood’s gross breach of its duty of due care. These losses reflect
damages to Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass in an amount to be determined
at trial or separate proceedings as necessary:
a. Enter an immediate injunction requiring Robinhood to reinstatement
GME and other stocks on their trading platform;
13
d. Enter an award for punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and
reckless behavior of Defendants;
COUNT IV
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
61. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained herein.
62. As a licensed provider of financial services, Robinhood at all times relevant herein was a
fiduciary to Plaintiff and Class members and owed them the highest good faith and
integrity in performing its financial services on their behalf. Robinhood also acted as a
fiduciary to each and every customer who agreed to the Customer Agreement.
63. Robinhood breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and Class members by, among other
things, failing to disclose that its platform was going to remove GME purchases in a
timely manner; actually removing GME; removing GME for its own pecuniary benefits;
that Robinhood failed to provide access to its financial services in a timely manner; that
Robinhood failed to comply with all applicable legal, regulatory, and licensing
requirements; and that Robinhood failed to exercise trades and actions requested by
customers in a complete and timely manner (also required by FINRA Rule 5310).
64. Robinhood’s conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class members’ harm, losses, and damages
and continues to expose them to harm because Robinhood continues to breach its fiduciary
duties. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiff and Class members in an amount to be
determined at trial or separate proceedings as necessary.
14
a. Enter an immediate injunction requiring Robinhood to reinstatement
GME and other stocks on their trading platform;
d. Enter an award for punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and
reckless behavior of Defendants;
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for the claims set forth in the complaint.
Dated: January 28, 2021 DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
/s/ Caroline Miller

Caroline Miller, Esq.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1310
Miami, FL 33131
caroline@dereksmithlaw.com
Tel: (305) 946-1884
Fax: (305) 503-6741
/s/ Alexander G. Cabeceiras

Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
New York, New York 10119
alexc@dereksmithlaw.com
Tel: (212) 587-0760
Fax: (212) 587-4169
(Pro Hac Application Forthcoming)
Counsel for Plaintiff
15
Save As... Print Reset
Case 0:21-cv-60226-RAR Document
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) FLSD Revised 10/14/2020 1-1 COVER
CIVIL Entered SHEET
on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose
of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS PETER FRAY, individually and on DEFENDANTS ROBINHOOD FINANCIALLY LLC,
behalf of all others similarly situated ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, AND
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Broward County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Delaware
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC n/a
(d) Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 460 Deportation
New Drug Application
840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 880 Defend Trade Secrets Corrupt Organizations
Act of 2016
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff)
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters
Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC Act/Review or Appeal of
Sentence 7609 Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Other: 950 Constitutionality of State
Accommodations Statutes
245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION
290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee –
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
■ 1 Original 2 Removed 3 Re-filed 4 Reinstated 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 7 Appeal to 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding from State (See VI or another district Litigation
District Judge Litigation 9 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Court below) Reopened (specify) Transfer
from Magistrate – Direct
Judgment File
VI. RELATED/ (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO
RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract
LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT:
X X
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes No

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
Case 0:21-cv-60226-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 2 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) FLSD Revised 10/14/2020
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required
for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each
civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official,
giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation
cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in
one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and
box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4
is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature
of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court.
VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judges name for such cases.
VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
Southern District
__________ District of
of Florida
__________
PETER FRAY, individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated )
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 0:21-CV-60226
)
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC ROBINHOOD
)
SECURITIES, LLC ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC
To: (Defendant’s name and address) -Via Registered Agent -
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC
℅ Caroline H. Miller, Esq.
Miami Florida 33131
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
Southern District
of Florida
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )

ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC
Miami Florida 33131
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
of Florida
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )

ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.
Miami Florida 33131
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

Florida Class Action - Robinhood

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Florida Class Action - Robinhood

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 0:21-cv-60226-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 1 of 15

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PETER FRAY, individually and on

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC Plaintiff Demands a

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Peter Fray (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) sues Defendant ROBINHOOD

FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:

1. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

3. Plaintiff was and is a citizen of the State of Florida.

4. Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. It is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc. Robinhood Financial LLC is registered as a broker-dealer

Robinhood Securities, LLC.

5. Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal

6. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

7. The above-named corporate defendants herein referred to collectively as

Complaint occurred or emanated from this District.

customers to purchase and sell securities, including futures contracts.

its customers to trade particular securities.

search for GME on Robinhood’s app.

not Robinhood’s customers.

investors of potential gains.

“shorting” GME in the hopes the price drops.

negligence and failure to maintain adequate infrastructure.

on all other platforms.

was deprived of the ability due to Robinhood’s actions.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

following Class, as defined below:

All Robinhood customers within the United States.

Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Subclass, as defined below:

execute trades on GME after Robinhood knowingly, willfully, and

purposefully removed it completely from their platform.

Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Class, as defined below:

All Robinhood customers within the State of Florida.

Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Subclass, as defined below:

execute trades on GME and other securities after Robinhood knowingly,

willfully, and purposefully removed completely from their platform.

Robinhood pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

may be notified of the pendency of this action by reference to Robinhood’s records, or by

other alternative means.

available on every other competitive trading platform;

purposefully removed GME;

c. Whether Robinhood removed GME purposefully to harm their customers’

positions in GME and benefit their own potential financial gains;

rules, and federal regulations;

e. Whether Robinhood violated consumer protection laws in failing to disclose that

substantial periods of time;

f. Whether Robinhood was in breach of its legal, regulatory, and licensing

requirements by failing to provide adequate access to financial services;

h. Whether Robinhood was negligent or grossly negligent by failing to provide

i. Whether Robinhood breached its fiduciary duties to customers by failing to provide

adequate access to financial services;

j. Whether Robinhood was unjustly enriched by its conduct;

other appropriate relief, including injunctive relief.

Robinhood’s wrongful conduct.

competent counsel experienced in prosecuting complex class actions, including those

adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant.

burden of pursuing individual remedies for Robinhood’s wrongful conduct. Treatment as

material difficulties in management.