Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
`HEATHER L. BLAISE, ESQ. (SBN 261619)
`123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-448-6602
`Email: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`HANNA KAYALI and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`CASE NO:
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HANNA KAYALI AND MOHAMMED
`A. DOLEH, individually and on behalf of
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC,
`ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
`ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,
`CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS,
`LLC, MELVIN CAPITAL
`MANAGEMENT, LP, TD
`AMERITRADE, INC., THE CHARLES
`SCHWAB CORPORATION, and
`CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`NOW COME Plaintiffs, HANNA KAYALI, (hereinafter “Kayali” or
`“Plaintiff”), and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH, (hereinafter “Doleh” or “Plaintiff”),
`(collectively “Plaintiffs”) individually and on behalf of the proposed class, by and
`through their attorneys, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C., and submit their class action
`complaint against ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES,
`LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC; CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS,
`- 1 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`LLC; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION;
`CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.; and MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP
`(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”). In furtherance whereof,
`Plaintiffs state as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`This is a class action based upon Defendants’ intentional and willful restriction
`for certain securities including but not limited to Naked Brand Group Ltd.
`(“NAKD”), Nokia Corporation (“NOK”), and AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
`(“AMC”), from its trading platform thereby dispossessing the retail investors of the
`ability to invest in the free market.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff HANNA KAYALI is a U.S. citizen who at all times mentioned
`1.
`in this Complaint resided in the Northern District of Illinois.
`Plaintiff MOHAMMED A. DOLEH is a U.S. citizen who at all times
`2.
`mentioned in this Complaint resided in the Northern District of Illinois.
`Defendant ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC is a Delaware corporation
`3.
`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.
`Defendant ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC is a Delaware corporation
`4.
`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.
`- 2 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Defendant ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. is a Delaware corporation
`5.
`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.
`The above-named corporate defendants herein referred to collectively as
`6.
`“Robinhood.”
`Defendant CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC is a Delaware
`7.
`corporation with its principal place of business at 131 South Dearborn Street,
`Chicago, IL 60603. Citadel Enterprises Americas is the largest customer of
`Robinhood.
`Defendant MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP is a Delaware
`8.
`corporation with its principal place of business at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, New York, 10022. Citadel Enterprise Americas, LLC is a hedge fund that
`owns Melvin Capital Management LP.
`Defendant TD AMERITRADE, INC., is a New York corporation with
`9.
`its principal place of business registered to do business in Illinois, but not in good
`standing.
`10. Defendant THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION is a Delaware
`corporation with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco, CA
`94105.
`11. Defendant CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC. is a California
`corporation with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco, CA
`94105.
`12. As of October 2020, The Charles Schwab Corporation acquired TD
`Ameritrade.
`13. The above-named corporate defendants herein referred to collectively as
`“TD Ameritrade.”
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`14. Each of the Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the
`acts of the other Defendants as described herein, and ratified, approved, joined in,
`acquiesced in, and/or authorized the acts of the other, and/or retained the benefits of
`the said acts.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`15. This Court has Federal Question Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1331 because the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
`States.
`16. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
`over Plaintiffs’ claims seeking damages for violations of state law because said
`claims arise out of the same case or controversy for which, as set forth above, this
`Court already has proper subject matter jurisdiction.
`17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in that, among
`other things, Defendants do business in this Judicial District.
`18. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1391(b)-(d).
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`19. Robinhood is a FINRA regulated broker-dealer, registered with the U.S.
`Securities and Exchange Commission, and is a member of the Securities Investor
`Protection Corporation. The company’s revenue comes from three main sources:
`interest earned on customers’ cash balances, selling order information to high
`frequency traders, and margin lending. The company has 13 million users as of its
`most recent SEC filing.
`20. According to its “About Us” section on its website, Robinhood believes
`that the financial system should be built to work for everyone. About Us, ROBINHOOD
`(2021), https://robinhood.com/us/en/about-us/ (last visited January 28, 2021).
`21. Robinhood prides itself as being “…on a mission to democratize finance
`for all.” Id.
`
`- 4 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`22. Citadel Enterprise Americas, LLC is one of the largest clients of
`Robinhood, and on information and belief, Citadel reloaded their short sale positions
`before they told Robinhood to stop trading stocks in GameStop Corp. (“GME”).
`23. TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading platform for
`the trade of financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
`contracts, exchange-traded funds, options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed
`income investments.
`24. TD Ameritrade provides investing and trading services for 11 million
`client accounts that total more than $1 trillion in assets, and custodial services for
`more than 6,000 independent registered investment advisors.
`25. On or around January 26, 2021 stocks in Naked Brand Group Ltd.
`(“NAKD”) began to rise.
`26. On or around January 22, 2021 stocks in Nokia Corporation, (“NOK”)
`began to rise.
`27. On or around January 26, 2021 stocks in AMC Entertainment Holdings,
`Inc. (“AMC”) began to rise.
`28. At these times, Robinhood and TD Ameritrade allowed retail investors
`to trade NAKD, NOK, and AMC on the open market.
`29. On or about January 28, 2021, in an effort to restrict the free market,
`Robinhood and TD Ameritrade deprived its individual investor customers of the
`ability to transact on their platforms for certain securities including NAKD, NOK,
`and AMC.
`30. Meanwhile, hedge funds and institutional investors may continue to
`trade as normal.
`31. Robinhood explicitly stated, “We continuously monitor the markets and
`make changes where necessary. In light of recent volatility, we are restricting
`transactions for certain securities to position closing only, including $AAL, $AMC,
`$BB, $BBBY, $CTRM, $EXPR, $GME, $KOSS, $NAKD, $NOK, $SNDL, $TR,
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`and $TRVG. We also raised margin requirements for certain securities. Keeping
`Customers Informed Through Market Volatility, ROBINHOOD (January 28, 2021),
`https://blog.robinhood.com (last visited January 28, 2021).
`32. TD Ameritrade states, “In the interest of mitigating risk for our company
`and clients, we have put in place several restrictions on some transactions in $GME
`[GameStop], $AMC [AMC Theaters] and other securities.” Mark DeCambre,
`GameStop and AMC Trading Restricted by TD Ameritrade, Schwab, Robinhood
`Others, MSN.COM (January 28, 2021), https://www.msn.com/en-
`us/money/topstocks/gamestop-amc-trading-is-now-being-restricted-at-td-ameritrade-
`schwab/ar-BB1d9dmv (last visited January 28, 2021).
`33. On information and belief, Robinhood and TD Ameritrade’s actions
`were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of
`hedge funds and institutional investors.
`In short, certain securities including GME, NAKD, NOK, and AMC
`34.
`(collectively, “the Stocks”) may only be sold on the platforms now, which will
`necessarily cause of the price of those stocks to fall or stagnate.
`35. A notification appeared on Robinhood telling users that they could close
`their position on GME’s stock but not buy any additional shares.
`36. Plaintiff Kayali purchased AMC, NAKD, and NOK on January 27,
`2021.
`37. On the morning of January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Kayali sold her interest in
`NAKD.
`38. On the morning of January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Kayali used her
`Robinhood app, searched for AMC and NOK, and found they were unavailable. The
`stock did not even appear, although AMC and NOK are publicly traded companies.
`39. Plaintiff Doleh purchased AMC stock on January 27, 2021.
`
`- 6 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`40. On the morning of January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Doleh used his TD
`Ameritrade app, searched for AMC, and found it was unavailable. The stock did not
`even appear, although AMC is a publicly traded company.
`41. Thus, Plaintiffs, like all others similarly situated lost out on all earning
`opportunities.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`42. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the following
`putative class:
`All Robinhood and TD Ameritrade customers within the United States.
`43. The Class (“Class”) is so numerous that joinder of all individual
`members (individually, “Class Member” or collectively, “Class Members”) in one
`action would be impracticable, given the expected Class size and modest value of
`individual claims.
`44. There are more than 20 million Robinhood and TD Ameritrade
`customers.
`45. Class Members can be identified through Defendants’ records.
`46. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members, as they
`are based on the same legal theory and arise from the same unlawful conduct.
`47. There are common questions of law and fact affecting Class Members,
`which common questions predominate over questions that may affect individual
`members. These common questions include, but are not limited to:
`a. Whether and to what extent Defendants have deprived Class
`Members of earning opportunities;
`b. Whether and to what extent Defendants have deprived Class
`Members of their right to freely trade on the open market;
`c. Whether and to what extent Defendants conspired to deprive Class
`Members of their ability to freely trade;
`d. Whether Defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890;
`- 7 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`e. Whether Defendants violated Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
`Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505;
`f. Whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to their
`customers by failing to provide adequate access to financial services;
`g. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their conduct;
`h. Whether Defendants are in breach of their contracts with Class
`Members in connection with their failure to provide financial
`services;
`i. Whether Defendants violated consumer protection laws in failing to
`disclose that its services would not include the ability to trade certain
`securities including GME, AMC, NAKD, and NOK, for substantial
`periods of time;
`j. Whether Class members are entitled to actual damages, statutory
`damages, and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’
`wrongful conduct;
`k. Whether Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief to redress the
`imminent and currently ongoing harm faced as a result of their lost
`earning opportunities; and
`l. Whether or not Class Members are entitled to Declaratory Relief.
`48. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Class Members.
`Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict with the interests of Class Members.
`Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class actions. Neither
`Plaintiffs nor his or her counsel have any interests that might cause them not to
`pursue these claims vigorously.
`49. This action should be maintained as a class action because the
`prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of
`inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members that would
`establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Class.
`- 8 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`COUNT I
` Unlawful Combination and Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade in Violation of
`Section 1 of the Sherman Act
`(All Defendants)
`
`50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-49 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`51. On information and belief, the Defendants combined, conspired, or
`contracted to contemporaneously decide upon and enact a coordinated prohibition on
`the purchase of shares of the Stocks by Plaintiffs.
`52. The Defendants have prohibited and continue to prohibit purchases of
`shares of the Stocks by Plaintiffs in an unreasonable restraint of trade in the stock
`market. Despite prohibiting purchases of shares of the Stocks, the Defendants have
`continued to allow Plaintiffs to sell shares of the Stocks.
`53. As a result of Defendants contract combination, or conspiracy, the
`unreasonable restraint of trade in the stock market has caused injury to Plaintiffs by
`prohibiting their purchase of shares of the Stocks. Despite this prohibition,
`Defendants Robinhood and TD Ameritrade (“Trading Platform Defendants”) allow
`Plaintiffs to sell shares of the Stocks on their platforms.
`COUNT II
`Attempted Monopolization of the Stock Market in Violation of
`Section 2 of the Sherman Act
`(Against All Defendants)
`54. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-53 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`55. By prohibiting Plaintiffs from purchasing the Stocks but not from selling
`the Stocks, Defendants engaged in and continue to engage in exclusionary conduct
`that is deleterious to consumers and to the anticompetitive benefit of the Defendants.
`Defendants engaged in and continue to engage in anticompetitive conduct.
`56. Through the continued anticompetitive conduct of excluding Plaintiffs
`from the stock market as competitors by prohibiting Plaintiffs purchase of the Stocks,
`- 9 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`Defendants manifested and continue to manifest a specific intent to monopolize.
`Defendants’ coordinated prohibition of Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Stocks
`demonstrates Defendants’ specific intent to monopolize the stock market.
`57. Upon information and belief, the Defendants collectively control a
`majority share of trading within the stock market. Defendants’ coordinated
`prohibition of Plaintiff’s purchase of the Stocks is likely to increase Defendants’
`market share within the stock market. As a result, Defendants’ anticompetitive
`conduct poses a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly.
`COUNT III
`Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice
`815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
`(Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-57 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`59. That at all times relevant herein, there existed in full force and effect the
`Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq.
`(hereinafter “The Act”).
`60. The Act makes it unlawful to employ:
`“[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
`practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of
`any deception
`fraud,
`false pretense,
`false promise,
`misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission
`of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the
`concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact …
`in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
`
`815 ILCS 505/2.
`61. As detailed throughout Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Trading Platform
`Defendants have committed deceptive practices by restricting Plaintiffs’ purchase,
`but not sale, of the Stocks, in violation of Customer Agreements between Plaintiffs
`and Trading Platform Defendants.
`
`- 10 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`62. As a proximate cause of Trading Platform Defendants deceptive
`business practices as alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered an injury in fact having
`lost or deprived of money or property in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs
`were unable to timely execute trades in their financial interests because of
`Defendants’ deceptive practices.
`63. Trading Platform Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent acts and
`practices present a continuing threat to Plaintiffs and to members of the public in that
`these acts and practices are ongoing and are harmful and disruptive to consumers.
`COUNT IV
`Breach of Contract
`(Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-63 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`In order to use the Defendants’ Trading Platform, potential customers
`65.
`must enter into a Customer Agreement with the Trading Platform Defendants.
`66. Plaintiffs and all class members entered into a Customer Agreement with
`one or more of the Trading Platform Defendants.
`67. Trading Platform Defendants breached their Customer Agreements by,
`among other things,
`a. failing to disclose that their platforms would restrain the purchase but
`not sale of the Stocks;
`b. knowingly putting their customers at a disadvantage relative to other
`stock traders by other means;
`c. failing to adequately explain the decision to prohibit the purchase of
`the Stocks;
`d. failing to provide access to their services concerning the Stocks;
`e. prohibiting Plaintiffs from performing under the Agreements;
`f. failing to comply with all applicable legal, regulatory, and licensing
`requirements; and,
`
`- 11 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`g. failing to exercise trades and actions requested by customers.
`68. As such, Trading Platform Defendants breached their Agreements with
`Plaintiffs and continue to breach these Agreements.
`69. Trading Platform Defendants’ failure to perform under these
`Agreements has resulted in damages and losses to Plaintiffs and continues to expose
`them to harm. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be
`determined at trial.
`
`COUNT V
`Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`(Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-69 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`71. Plaintiffs entered into Agreements with Trading Platform Defendants to
`open trading accounts. Plaintiffs agreed to Trading Platform Defendants’ Terms and
`Conditions by using Trading Platform Defendants’ websites and trading platforms.
`72. Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations under these contracts by adhering to
`their terms and using Trading Platform Defendants’ services through their websites
`and trading platforms.
`73. Trading Platform Defendants were obligated to provide the trading
`services required under those contracts at all times, including but not limited to,
`purchases of shares in the Stocks.
`74. When initially signing up for the trading platforms, Plaintiffs and all
`those similarly situated could and did purchase shares in the Stocks.
`75. Trading Platform Defendants’ unfairly interfered with the rights of
`Plaintiffs to receive the benefit of their Agreements with Trading Platform
`Defendants by, among other things:
`a. Failing to provide the services necessary to carry out purchases of
`shares in the Stocks;
`b. Failing to provide certain trading services whatsoever;
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`c. Failing to inform individuals in a timely manner of the drastic
`changes in trading abilities on Trading Platform Defendants’
`trading platforms; and,
`d. Prohibiting Plaintiffs from purchasing shares in the Stocks for the
`Trading Platform Defendants’ pecuniary interests and not
`disclosing those interests to Plaintiffs.
`76. Trading Platform Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiffs harm,
`losses, and damages. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be
`determined at trial.
`
`COUNT VI
`Negligence
`(In the Alternative, Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-76 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`78. Trading Platform Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in
`conducting and facilitating transactions for its customers.
`79. Trading Platform Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in
`providing trades on the free, open market for its customers.
`80. Trading Platform Defendants unlawfully breached their duties by,
`among other things:
`a. Prohibiting the purchase of shares of the Stocks without notice;
`b. Failing to provide financial services related to the Stocks; and
`c. Failing to notify customers in a timely manner of the restrictions
`placed upon purchases of shares of the Stocks.
`81. Trading Platform Defendants’ conduct as set forth in this Complaint was
`want of even scant care, and their 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.
`- 13 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`82. Upon information and belief, no institutions similar to Trading Platform
`Defendants have ever prohibited customers from purchasing a specific share of a
`specific security prior to the acts and omissions described in this Complaint.
`83. Trading Platform Defendants essentially abandoned their customers
`altogether by prohibiting the purchase of shares of the Stocks, 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 and abdication of their duties.
`84. Trading Platform Defendants’ grossly negligent and wrongful breaches
`of their duties owed to Plaintiffs proximately caused losses and damages that would
`not have occurred but for Trading Platform Defendants’ gross breaches of their duties
`of due care. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined
`at trial.
`
`COUNT VII
`Breach of Fiduciary Duty
`(Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`85. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-84 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`86. As licensed providers of financial services, Trading Platform Defendants
`at all times relevant herein were fiduciaries to Plaintiffs and owed them the highest
`good faith and integrity in performing their financial services on the behalf of
`Plaintiffs. Trading Platform Defendants also acted as fiduciaries to each and every
`customer who agreed to their Customer Agreements.
`87. Trading Platform Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs
`by, among other things:
`a. Failing to disclose in a timely manner that their platforms planned to
`prohibit purchases of shares of the Stocks;
`b. Prohibiting purchases of shares of the Stocks for Defendants’
`pecuniary benefits;
`
`- 14 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`c. Failing to provide access to their financial services in a timely
`manner;
`d. Failing to comply with all applicable legal, regulatory, and licensing
`requirements; and
`e. Failing to exercise trades and actions requested by customers in a
`complete and timely manner.
`88. Trading Platform Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiffs’ harm,
`losses, and damages and continues to expose Plaintiffs to harm because Trading
`Platform Defendants continue to breach their fiduciary duties. These losses reflect
`damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial.
`COUNT VIII
`Civil Conspiracy
`(Against All Defendants)
`
`89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-88 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`90. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly and intentionally
`agreed to prohibit the purchase of shares of the Stocks on the Trading Platform
`Defendants trading platforms for the pecuniary benefits of the Defendants. This
`agreement and subsequent concerted action comprise a common scheme among
`Defendants.
`91. This common scheme represents a combination for the purpose of
`accomplishing the unlawful act of the restraint of free trade in the stock market by
`concerted action for the pecuniary benefits of the Defendants.
`In furtherance of this unlawful agreement, Trading Platform Defendants
`92.
`committed the tortious act of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
`Practices Act.
`93. Defendants’ acts in furtherance of this unlawful agreement has caused
`Plaintiffs’ harm, losses, and damages. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiffs in an
`amount to be determined at trial.
`
`- 15 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`COUNT IX
`Action for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and
`Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
`(Against Trading Platform Defendants)
`
`94. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-93 of this Complaint as
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`95. Plaintiffs seek the entry of a temporary restraining order and a
`preliminary and permanent injunction to return the Parties to, and to maintain the
`status quo that existed and was to exist among the Parties, including but not limited
`to:
`
`a. requiring that the Trading Platform Defendants immediately allow
`the purchase of shares of the Stocks on their trading platforms;
`b. requiring that the Trading Platform Defendants immediately issue a
`public statement on their websites and to their users regarding their
`plan to cease and desist the prohibition of the purchase of shares of
`the Stocks.
`Injunctive relief to return the Parties to the status quo ante is appropriate
`94.
`under the circumstances because Trading Platform Defendants are restricting the
`purchase of shares of the Stocks.
`95. The restriction of the purchase of shares of securities cannot be remedied
`by an award of money damages or through the granting of other relief.
`96. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate and
`irreparable harm by reason of the conduct described above. Such immediate and
`irreparable harm includes, but is not limited to, the inability to execute trades in the
`Plaintiffs’ pecuniary interests.
`97. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law to protect and re-
`establish the rights which currently have been, and continue to be, violated by
`Trading Platform Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs’ rights cannot be obtained except
`through injunctive relief returning the Parties to the status quo ante.
`- 16 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00835 Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`98. Entering the injunctive relief the Plaintiffs’ are seeking will cause the
`Trading Platform Defendants no economic harm. Defendants have no right,
`whatsoever, to restrain the lawful free trade of particular securities.
`99. Trading Platform Defendants will suffer no loss, economic or otherwise,
`if compelled to act in accordance with the law, by refraining from restraining the
`lawful free trade of shares of the Stocks.
`100. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Plaintiffs will succeed on the
`merits of their claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, HANNA KAYALI and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH,
`individually and on behalf of the proposed class, by and through their attorneys,
`Blaise & Nitschke, P.C., pray for relief as follows:
`a. For an Order certifying this action as a class action and appointing
`Plaintiffs and their Counsel to represent the Class;
`b. Enter an immediate injunction requiring Robinhood and TD
`Ameritrade to reinstatement NOK, NAKD, and AMC on their trading
`platforms;
`c. Enter an award for Plaintiffs to be determined;
`d. Enter an award of attorneys’ fees and costs;
`e. Enter an award for punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and
`reckless behavior of Defendants; and
`f. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`JURY DEMAND
`Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury of all matters so triable.
`DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND
`Plaintiffs hereby demand that Defendants take affirmative steps to preserve all
`recordings, data, documents, and all other tangible things that relate to Plaintiffs a