Moore v Robinhood Financial LLC Case Overview

The Moore v Robinhood Financial LLC case is a significant lawsuit that has garnered attention in the financial industry. The case was filed in 2020 by a group of investors who claimed that Robinhood Financial LLC, a popular brokerage app, engaged in deceptive and unfair practices.

The lawsuit alleged that Robinhood's business model prioritized its own interests over those of its customers, leading to significant financial losses for the plaintiffs. Robinhood's business practices, including its payment for order flow model, were at the center of the controversy.

The plaintiffs claimed that Robinhood's model resulted in the company receiving payments from market makers for executing trades, which created a conflict of interest and led to poor execution of trades for customers. This had a negative impact on the plaintiffs' investments and overall financial well-being.

The court information for Moore v Robinhood Financial LLC is as follows: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The court docket shows that the case was assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. The case was initially filed on June 24, 2020.

The court's docket also indicates that the case was consolidated with another case, Lee v Robinhood Financial LLC, on August 10, 2020.

Robinhood Financial LLC was a defendant in the case Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC, which was filed in the California Northern District Court.

The case was assigned to Judge James Donato and had a case number of 3:21-cv-06117.

The nature of the suit was related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically restrictions on the use of telephone equipment under 47:227.

The case was filed on August 9, 2021, and was terminated on November 17, 2021.

The defendant, Robinhood Financial LLC, was represented by a team of lawyers from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, including Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Kelly Michelle Gorton, and Kenneth E. Payson.

Here is a list of the lawyers representing Robinhood Financial LLC:

The plaintiff, Cooper Moore, was represented by a team of lawyers from Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Berger Montague PC, including Beth E. Terrell, Sophia Marie Rios, E. Michelle Drake, and Jennifer Rust Murray.

The Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) is a federal court that handles a wide range of cases, including motions to quash subpoenas.

The court's docket report provides a wealth of information, including the case number, filing date, and last known filing date. For example, in the case of Moore v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, the case number is 1:23-mc-00076, and it was filed on March 21, 2023.

The court's deadlines and hearings are also publicly available. In Moore v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, the court ordered the movant to serve the respondent with a copy of the motion to quash and file proof of service on the docket by March 31, 2023.

Here are the key deadlines and hearings for the case:

The court's order on motion to quash also provides insight into the decision-making process. In Moore v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, the court granted the motion to quash filed by the movants, Cooper Moore and Andrew Gillette, on April 25, 2023.

The N.D. California District Court is a federal court that serves the Northern District of California. It has 4 divisions: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Eureka.

The San Francisco division is the largest and busiest division, handling cases from the San Francisco Bay Area. It's a hub for tech-related cases, given the region's thriving tech industry.

The Oakland division serves Alameda and Contra Costa counties, hearing cases from the East Bay Area. It's known for its diverse caseload, including civil rights and employment law cases.

The San Jose division handles cases from Santa Clara County, including Silicon Valley. It's a popular venue for patent and intellectual property cases.

The Eureka division serves the rural areas of Northern California, including Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, and Mendocino counties. It's a smaller division with a more limited caseload compared to the other three.