**Eleventh Circuit — Case No. 24-13718: Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, FINRA Filed and indexed on Govinfo

Decision Creates National Concern: Ruling Gives the Appearance That Mandatory Federal Rules Do Not Apply Equally to Large Financial Institutions**

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, January 02, 2026 /24-7PressRelease/ -- A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA, Case No. 24-13718, has raised substantial national concern due to the appearance that influential financial institutions may not be held to the same mandatory federal procedural rules as ordinary litigants.

On Day 37 after the rehearing petition was submitted—an unusually long deliberation period for a summary denial—the Eleventh Circuit denied both panel and en banc rehearing. The extended timeframe underscores the difficulty the panel appeared to face in allowing an exception to mandatory federal deadlines to remain unclarified, particularly one benefiting major financial-market institutions.

In this case, Rule 12(b) motions were accepted more than two and a half years after the Rule 12(a) deadlines had expired, without:
• a required Rule 6(b)(1)(B) motion,
• any judicial finding of excusable neglect, and
• despite the case having already progressed into trial scheduling and court-ordered mediation.

Because the court declined to clarify the ruling, the decision now stands as written.

National Implications: Mandatory Deadlines Now Appear Optional

1. Appearance That Mandatory Federal Rules Do Not Apply Equally
Although the court made no findings about party conduct, the decision gives the strong appearance that mandatory federal rules do not apply equally when the litigants are large, powerful financial institutions such as Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were created to ensure equal treatment and predictable deadlines in every federal courtroom. When expired deadlines are effectively revived without the mechanisms the Rules require, it naturally raises concerns about uniformity, fairness, and the equal application of law to all parties—regardless of size or market influence.

This appearance alone poses a significant institutional challenge for the federal judiciary.

2. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants Will Cite This Case Nationwide
The decision is now indexed on GovInfo, the federal government's official repository for judicial opinions, making it searchable and citable across all circuits.

Litigants may use the ruling to argue that:
• long-expired deadlines can be revived years later,
• Rule 6(b)'s mandatory excusable-neglect requirements are optional,
• dispositive motions may be filed well after the pleading stage, and
• cases in trial preparation may revert abruptly back to early motion practice.

This will likely cause:
• inconsistent district-court decisions,
• heightened procedural disputes,
• increased appeals seeking clarification, and
• a growing perception that the Federal Rules no longer operate uniformly.

3. Uncertainty Now Reaches the Entire Federal System
Because federal procedure must be uniform nationwide, the lack of clarification in this case extends uncertainty far beyond the Eleventh Circuit.
Federal judges, attorneys, corporate litigants, and individuals across the United States must now confront the same unanswered question:
Are federal procedural deadlines still mandatory, or can they be informally revived without a Rule 6(b) motion and excusable-neglect findings?
The Federal Rules were designed precisely to avoid this kind of systemic ambiguity.

Why This Is the Kind of Case the Supreme Court Often Hears
This case exhibits the exact characteristics that frequently lead the Supreme Court to grant certiorari:
1. A Pure, Clean Question of Federal Law
The issue is purely procedural:
Can expired Rule 12 deadlines be revived without a Rule 6(b) motion and without findings of excusable neglect?
There are no factual complexities.

2. A Nationwide Need for Uniformity
Federal procedural deadlines must operate identically across all circuits.
This ruling—left unclarified—creates a risk of divergent interpretations nationwide.

3. A Recurring, Important Issue
Late filings and missed deadlines are among the most common procedural events in federal courts.
A lack of guidance ensures the issue will recur repeatedly.

4. A Clean Vehicle for Review
The case presents preserved issues, final judgment, and no jurisdictional obstacles.

5. Systemic Impact and Public Confidence
The appearance that large financial institutions may receive procedural leniency not available to others directly affects public trust in the equal application of the Federal Rules.

A Petition for Certiorari Is Being Prepared
A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States is now being prepared, seeking clarification on the mandatory nature of federal deadlines and the proper application of Rule 6(b) and Rule 12(a).
The petition will allow the Supreme Court to determine whether review is warranted and, if so, to restore uniformity and predictability to an issue that affects litigants in every federal jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Options
If the Supreme Court reviews the case, it may:
1. Issue a Summary Reversal
Appropriate where a decision appears inconsistent with the plain text of the Federal Rules.
2. Grant, Vacate, and Remand (GVR)
Directing the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider under the correct legal standards.
3. Conduct Full Merits Review
Providing definitive, nationwide guidance on how expired deadlines must be treated.

About the Case
Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA, Case No. 24-13718, concerns whether federal courts may revive long-expired Rule 12 deadlines without adherence to Rule 6(b)'s mandatory requirements. The Eleventh Circuit's decision not to clarify the issue has prompted broad national concern regarding fairness, uniformity, and the equal application of federal procedural law.

# # #