Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 6 Filed 08/19/25 Page 2 of 3
TO: THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Rule 42-1, this matter, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer , Case No. 2:25-cv-01541 (“ Robinhood v. Dreitzer” ), is related to KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick , Case No. 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW (“ Kalshi v. Hendrick ”) and should promptly be reassigned to Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon, who is currently presiding over Kalshi v. Hendrick . Plaintiff Robinhood Derivatives, LLC (“Robinhood”) believes that Robinhood v. Dreitzer is related to Kalshi v. Hendrick because “[b]oth actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law, and their assignment to the same district judge or magistrate judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” Local Rule 42-1(a). Furthermore, “it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the actions were heard by different district judges.” Id. First , both actions involve the same (or closely related) questions of fact. Plaintiffs in both Kalshi v. Hendrick and Robinhood v. Dreitzer are Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”)-regulated entities, and both offer KalshiEX, LLC’s (“Kalshi”) sports-related event contracts to their customers. Robinhood is a CFTC-regulated futures commission merchant, which offers its customers sports-related event contracts that are traded on Kalshi’s CFTC-regulated designated contract market. The Nevada Gaming Control Board (“Board”) has threatened to enforce Nevada gaming laws against Plaintiffs in both actions for offering such contracts. Defendants in both actions are Nevada officials acting in their official capacity; Mike Dreitzer, lead defendant in this case, has replaced Kirk Hendrick, lead defendant in Kalshi v. Hendrick , as Chairman of the Board. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the Board’s conduct is causing them irreparable harm. Plaintiffs in both actions seek permanent injunctions restraining the Defendants from enforcing Nevada gaming laws against them. Second , both actions involve precisely the same question of law: whether Nevada’s gaming laws, as applied to trading sports-related event contracts on a CFTC-designated exchange, are preempted by the Commodities Exchange Act’s (“CEA”) comprehensive federal framework for regulating commodity futures and swaps trading.
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
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs