Apex Trader Funding refiled a motion on July 16 asking the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss a trader’s second amended complaint or, failing that, to send the dispute to arbitration. The case, McCrudden v. Apex Trader Funding, Inc. et al., was filed on April 30, 2026 and already has a jury trial term on the calendar. No judge has ruled on the claims.

What Apex filed

The motion was docketed on July 16, 2026 as Dkt. 37 in case 3:26-cv-01073, according to the court docket. It was the firm’s third attempt. The court denied its first two motions to dismiss on July 10 and July 13, both without prejudice, for violating the district’s Local Rules: one exceeded the page limit, the other lacked the required certification that the parties had conferred. Those denials were procedural. They said nothing about whether the claims are good.

The alternative request matters as much as the dismissal request. If the court sends the case to arbitration, the dispute leaves the public docket and is decided in private under the account agreement.

What the trader alleges

The complaint says Apex seized $18,495.28 in earned trading profits, and that the plaintiff paid more than $50,000 in subscription, evaluation, activation and platform fees on his original account, per the filed complaint. The counts include conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and unconscionability. Count X seeks controlling-person liability under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) against named Apex executives, a provision of the Commodity Exchange Act.

These are allegations by one plaintiff. Nothing in them has been proven, and Apex is contesting the case.

The schedule

The docket lists Judge Wendy W. Berger and a nature of suit of Securities/Commodities/Exchange. A scheduling order entered June 29, 2026 set a jury trial for the December 2027 term, commencing December 1, 2027. A ruling on arbitration would come well before that date and could remove the trial from the calendar.

What this means for Apex traders

The filing concerns where this one dispute is heard, not Apex’s current account terms. Traders on an evaluation are buying a paid service with simulated trading, governed by the agreement they accepted at signup. The part of that agreement worth reading here is the arbitration clause, because the motion is a test of whether such clauses keep claims like these out of federal court. This is not legal or investment advice.