1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

MONICA ACERRA, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM 

RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:20-cv-186-RH-MJF 

DAVID MCNEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM 

RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:20-cv-187-RH-MJF 

CONSENTED MOTION TO AMEND THE INITIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION 

REFORM ACT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Defendants Trulieve Cannabis Corp., Kim Rivers, and Mohan Srinivasan, file 

this consented motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“Reform Act”), 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 9
2 

and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 6.1 for entry of a scheduling order conforming to the Reform 

Act and state as follows:

1. On December 30, 2019, David McNear filed a putative class action on 

behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendants in the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-07289 (“McNear EDNY Action”). 

2. On February 12, 2020, Monica Acerra filed a substantively similar class 

action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Defendants in the 

Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-00775 (“Acerra EDNY Action”). 

3. On March 20, 2020, the Eastern District of New York consolidated the 

two actions “for all purposes included, but not limited to, discovery, pretrial proceedings, and trial proceedings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).” See Order Consolidating Related Cases, Appointing Lead Plaintiff, and Approving Lead Plaintiff’s 

Selection of Counsel, ¶ 1 [ECF No. 8]. That court also appointed William Kurek, 

John Colomara, David McNear, and Monica Acerra as Lead Plaintiffs and The 

Rosen Law Firm P.A. as Lead Counsel. Id., ¶¶ 7, 8. 

4. On April 13, 2020, Defendants filed in the Eastern District of New York 

an unopposed Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Florida. 

5. On April 14, 2020, the Eastern District of New York separately transferred 

the Acerra EDNY Action and McNear EDNY Action to this Court. See Order Granting Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Transfer [ECF Nos. 9, 10]. The Acerra matter 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 9
3 

was designated Case No. 4:20-cv-186 and assigned to Judge Hinkle. The McNear 

matter was designated Case No. 4:20-cv-187 and assigned to Judge Winsor. 

6. On April 14, 2020, in the McNear matter, Judge Winsor issued a docket 

entry order that admissions are due by April 28, 2020. 

7. On April 15, 2020, in the Acerra matter, Judge Hinkle entered an Initial 

Scheduling Order [ECF No. 11]. 

8. On April 17, 2020, the McNear matter was reassigned to Judge Hinkle, 

and the two cases we consolidated for all purposes by order dated April 20, 2020 

[ECF No. 12]. 

9. Defendants file this Consented Motion to set deadlines in accordance with 

the Reform Act’s requirements follows: 

a. A Consolidated Class Action Complaint shall be filed no later than sixty 

(60) days after the date of entry of the order on this Motion. 

b. Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint no later than sixty (60) days after said 

complaint is filed. 

c. Responses to any motion to dismiss shall be filed no later than fortyfive (45) days after the motion is filed, and reply briefs shall be filed no 

later than thirty (30) days thereafter. 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 9
4 

d. All deadlines, discovery, the filing of any motion for class certification 

(per N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 23.1), and all other proceedings shall be stayed 

pending further order of this Court. 

The more particular grounds in support of this Consented Motion are set forth in the 

following Memorandum of Law. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE THE JOINTLY PROPOSED 

SCHEDULING ORDER THAT CONFORMS TO THE REFORM ACT’S 

AUTOMATIC STAY OF DISCOVERY AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS 

A. The Reform Act’s Automatic Stay of “Discovery and other Proceedings”

The Reform Act automatically stays “discovery and other proceedings” until 

this Court decides Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss: 

In any private action arising under this chapter, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless 

the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is 

necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party. 

42 U.S.C. § 78-u-4(b)(3)(B). 

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has ruled it 

appropriate “to postpone the case management conference, which, in effect, stays 

discovery, because Defendants have represented that they intend to file a motion to 

dismiss after the case management conference deadline, [] but prior to the deadline 

to respond to the Complaint.” Albers v. Commonwealth Capital Corp., 2016 WL 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 9
5 

9526453 (M.D. Fla. 2016). And courts around the country have embraced the majority position that “discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed,” 42 U.S.C. § 

78-u-4(b)(3)(B), if the Defendants—like those here—have indicated that they intend 

to file a motion to dismiss.1

B. Good Cause Exists to Amend the Initial Scheduling Order 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1-2), “unless the judge finds 

good cause for delay, the judge must issue [a scheduling order] within the earlier of 

90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any 

defendant has appeared.” The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, 

including the requirements of a discovery conference and initial disclosures, may 

also be modified by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a,c,f). The requirements of the 

corresponding Local Rules may also be altered by court order. 

“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Square Ring, Inc. v. Troyanovsky, 2018 WL 4381288, at *3 (N.D. Fla. 2018). 

 

1 See also e.g,, Morgensen v. Body Central Corp., 2014 WL 12621615, at *2 (M.D. 

Fla. 2014) (The “basic premise” behind the Reform Act’s discovery stay is that 

“plaintiffs must state a legally sufficient claim for relief using information available 

to them by means other than discovery”); In re Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2007 WL 

1483633, at *5 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“Discovery in securities fraud cases is, except in 

rare circumstances, permitted only after plaintiffs have met the pleading standards 

of the statute.”) (emphasis in original); In re Carnegie International Corporation 

Sec. Litig., 107 F. Supp. 2d 676, 683 (D. Md. 2000) (“The intent of the [Reform Act] 

is served by a stay of discovery until the defendants have the opportunity to test the 

sufficiency of the complaint under the orderly procedures provided by the rules and 

court orders.”). 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 9
6 

Parties seeking to establish good cause must show they were diligent in attempting 

to meet the schedule. Id. at *4. Parties seeking to establish good cause must show 

they were diligent in attempting to meet the schedule. Square Ring, Inc. v. 

Troyanovsky, 2018 WL 4381288, at *4 (N.D. Fla. 2018). 

Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file a consolidated amended 

complaint, as is typically done in private securities class actions. Defendants intend 

to file a motion to dismiss, as is also typically done in private securities class actions. 

Rule 16’s requirement of “good cause” here is satisfied where the Reform Act provides “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed” until Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss is resolved. Defendants acted with alacrity—they have 

moved for this Court to refrain from issuing a Scheduling Order and for entry of the 

Jointly Proposed Order within a week of the Eastern District of New York’s transfer 

to this Court.2

The jointly proposed schedule—which provides adequate time for Lead Plain-

 

2

 In Debose v. Ellucian Company, L.P., 2019 WL 7288758, at *5 (11th Cir. 2019), 

the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s case management of a wrongful termination lawsuit when it refused to issue a case management and scheduling order 

before mediation had been attempted or a motion to dismiss had been decided. 

Debose applies with far greater force here, where the Reform Act automatically stays 

“all discovery and other proceedings” until a complaint has survived a motion to 

dismiss. 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 9
7 

tiffs to conclude their investigation, draft, and file their consolidated amended complaint and Defendants with equal time to prepare and file a motion to dismiss—is 

consistent with orders entered in other Reform Act cases, and will aid the efficient 

adjudication of this matter. 

CONCLUSION 

This Court should grant the Consented Motion and adopt the jointly proposed 

schedule to conform to the Reform Act. 

N.D. FLA. LOC. R. 7.1(B) CERTIFICATION 

OF GOOD FATH CONFERENCE 

Undersigned counsel certifies that they conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs in conformance with N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B) and is authorized to represent that 

Plaintiffs consent to the relief sought. 

N.D. FLA. LOC. R. 7.1(F) CERTIFICATION OF WORD LIMIT 

Undersigned counsel certifies that this motion and accompanying memorandum of law has 1180 words, exclusive of the case style, signature block, and certifications of service, good faith conference, and word limit. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Glenn Burhans, Jr. 

GLENN BURHANS, JR. 

FLORIDA BAR NO. 605867 

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER 

 ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. 

HIGHPOINT CENTER 

106 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE

SUITE 700 

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 

PAUL R. BESSETTE 

TEXAS BAR NO. 02263050 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

MICHAEL BILES

TEXAS BAR NO. 24008578 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

JESSICA ENGLAND

TEXAS BAR NO. 24105841 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 9
8 

TELEPHONE: (850) 329-4850 

GBURHANS@STEARNSWEAVER.COM

GRACE L. MEAD

FLORIDA BAR NO. 49896 

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER 

 ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. 

MUSEUM TOWER

150 WEST FLAGLER STREET

SUITE 2200 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130 

TELEPHONE: (305) 789-3200 

GMEAD@STEARNSWEAVER.COM

SRIMATH SALIYA SUBASINGHE

TEXAS BAR NO. 24093226 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

TYLER WAYNE HIGHFUL

TEXAS BAR NO. 24083176 

Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending 

KING & SPALDING LLP 

500 W. 2ND STREET, SUITE 1800 

AUSTIN, TX 78701 

PBESSETTE@KSLAW.COM

MBILES@KSLAW.COM

JENGLAND@KSLAW.COM

SSUBASINGHE@KSLAW.COM

THIGHFUL@KSLAW.COM

Counsel for Defendants Trulieve Cannabis Corp., 

Kim Rivers and Mohan Srinivasan 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 9
9 

#8383378 v1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed 

via CM/ECF this 24th day of April, 2020, which will serve all counsel of record, or 

by e-mail to: 

Phillip Kim 

Laurence M Rosen 

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 

275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

pkim@rosenlegal.com

lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Patrick V. Dahlstrom 

Pomerantz LLP 

10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 

Chicago, IL 60603 

pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

J. Alexander Hood II 

Jeremy A. Liebermaan 

Pomerantz LLP 

600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 

New York, NY 10016 

ahood@pomlaw.com

jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Peretz Bronstein 

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC 

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 

New York, NY 10165 

peretz@bgandg.com

 s/ Glenn Burhans, Jr. 

Case 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 9