Do Mandatory Federal Rules Apply to Large Financial Institutions? U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Federal Procedural Question - Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Robinhood Citadel SC 25-7006
Supreme Court asked to decide whether large financial institutions can bypass mandatory federal deadlines without Rule 6(b) compliance, as a circuit split raises concerns over equal application of procedural law nationwide.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, March 18, 2026 -- The Supreme Court of the United States has docketed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA, assigning Supreme Court Case No. 25-7006. The petition presents a procedural question concerning the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Do mandatory federal procedural rules apply equally to large financial institutions when litigation deadlines have expired?
The petition arises from proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case No. 24-13718). The case and related filings are publicly indexed and searchable through GovInfo, the federal government's official repository for judicial records, making the materials accessible to courts, attorneys, researchers, and the public nationwide.
In the underlying litigation, Rule 12(b) motions were accepted more than two and a half years after the Rule 12(a) deadline had expired. According to the petition, the motions were accepted without:
• a motion under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) requesting permission to file after the deadline
• a judicial finding of "excusable neglect" under Rule 6(b)
• despite the case having already advanced into trial scheduling and court-ordered mediation
The petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether expired federal procedural deadlines may be addressed without the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rehearing Proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit
Following the Eleventh Circuit's decision, a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed. The court denied rehearing after 37 days of deliberation.
The length of time taken to consider the rehearing petition highlights the significance and difficulty of the procedural issue presented, underscoring why further clarification from the Supreme Court may be beneficial for courts and litigants nationwide.
Importance of Clarification of Federal Procedural Rules
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to promote uniform procedures and predictable deadlines across the federal court system.
The petition presents a narrow procedural question regarding the interpretation of Rule 6(b) and Rule 12:
Whether Rule 12 deadlines that expired years earlier may be revived without the Rule 6(b) motion and excusable-neglect finding described in the Federal Rules.
Because the respondents include several prominent financial-market entities—Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA—the case raises the broader procedural question of whether mandatory federal rules apply in the same manner when large financial institutions are parties to federal litigation.
Need for Nationwide Procedural Guidance
The petition notes that the Eleventh Circuit's handling of the procedural issue differs from numerous federal decisions that emphasize Rule 6(b)'s requirement that late filings be supported by a motion and a finding of excusable neglect before an expired deadline may be extended.
Because the Federal Rules are intended to operate uniformly across all federal courts, clarification from the Supreme Court could help ensure consistent guidance regarding how expired litigation deadlines should be treated.
Without clear nationwide guidance, parties in federal litigation may attempt to rely on differing interpretations of procedural rules in ways that could disrupt cases that are already approaching trial, including the filing of dispositive motions long after standard pleading deadlines have passed.
Supreme Court Review Process
With the petition now docketed as Case No. 25-7006, the Supreme Court will review the filing and determine whether further consideration is warranted.
Possible next steps include:
Request for Response — The Court may request briefing from the respondents.
Denial of Certiorari — The Court may decline to review the case.
Grant of Certiorari — If four Justices vote to grant review, the case would proceed to full briefing and potential oral argument before the Supreme Court.
Media Contact
Donnahue George
DonnahueGeorge@gmail.com
347 216-5257
About the Case
Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA concerns the interpretation of Rule 6(b) and Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and whether expired deadlines may be addressed without the motion and findings described in the Rules.
The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States (No. 25-7006), and the underlying materials are searchable through GovInfo, the official repository for federal judicial documents.
# # #
Do mandatory federal procedural rules apply equally to large financial institutions when litigation deadlines have expired?
The petition arises from proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case No. 24-13718). The case and related filings are publicly indexed and searchable through GovInfo, the federal government's official repository for judicial records, making the materials accessible to courts, attorneys, researchers, and the public nationwide.
In the underlying litigation, Rule 12(b) motions were accepted more than two and a half years after the Rule 12(a) deadline had expired. According to the petition, the motions were accepted without:
• a motion under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) requesting permission to file after the deadline
• a judicial finding of "excusable neglect" under Rule 6(b)
• despite the case having already advanced into trial scheduling and court-ordered mediation
The petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether expired federal procedural deadlines may be addressed without the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rehearing Proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit
Following the Eleventh Circuit's decision, a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed. The court denied rehearing after 37 days of deliberation.
The length of time taken to consider the rehearing petition highlights the significance and difficulty of the procedural issue presented, underscoring why further clarification from the Supreme Court may be beneficial for courts and litigants nationwide.
Importance of Clarification of Federal Procedural Rules
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to promote uniform procedures and predictable deadlines across the federal court system.
The petition presents a narrow procedural question regarding the interpretation of Rule 6(b) and Rule 12:
Whether Rule 12 deadlines that expired years earlier may be revived without the Rule 6(b) motion and excusable-neglect finding described in the Federal Rules.
Because the respondents include several prominent financial-market entities—Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA—the case raises the broader procedural question of whether mandatory federal rules apply in the same manner when large financial institutions are parties to federal litigation.
Need for Nationwide Procedural Guidance
The petition notes that the Eleventh Circuit's handling of the procedural issue differs from numerous federal decisions that emphasize Rule 6(b)'s requirement that late filings be supported by a motion and a finding of excusable neglect before an expired deadline may be extended.
Because the Federal Rules are intended to operate uniformly across all federal courts, clarification from the Supreme Court could help ensure consistent guidance regarding how expired litigation deadlines should be treated.
Without clear nationwide guidance, parties in federal litigation may attempt to rely on differing interpretations of procedural rules in ways that could disrupt cases that are already approaching trial, including the filing of dispositive motions long after standard pleading deadlines have passed.
Supreme Court Review Process
With the petition now docketed as Case No. 25-7006, the Supreme Court will review the filing and determine whether further consideration is warranted.
Possible next steps include:
Request for Response — The Court may request briefing from the respondents.
Denial of Certiorari — The Court may decline to review the case.
Grant of Certiorari — If four Justices vote to grant review, the case would proceed to full briefing and potential oral argument before the Supreme Court.
Media Contact
Donnahue George
DonnahueGeorge@gmail.com
347 216-5257
About the Case
Donnahue George v. Ken Griffin, Citadel, Robinhood, DTCC, and FINRA concerns the interpretation of Rule 6(b) and Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and whether expired deadlines may be addressed without the motion and findings described in the Rules.
The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States (No. 25-7006), and the underlying materials are searchable through GovInfo, the official repository for federal judicial documents.
# # #
Contact Information
Donnahue GeorgeDonnahue LLC
Fort Lauderdale, FL
United States
Voice: 3472165257
Disclaimer