Audet et al v. Garza et al
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Michael P Shea |
| Referred: | Donna F Martinez |
| Case #: | 3:16-cv-00940 |
| Nature of Suit | 850 Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchange |
| Cause | 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| Case Filed: | Jun 15, 2016 |
| Re-opened: | Nov 04, 2021 |
| Terminated: | Aug 01, 2023 |
| Last checked: Monday Dec 12, 2016 4:28 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Stuart A. Fraser
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
GAW Miners, LLC
|
|
|
Defendant
Zenminer, LLC
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Denis Marc Audet
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Michael Pfeiffer
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Dean Allen Shinners
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Jason Vargas
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Defendant
Homero Joshua Garza
Terminated: 10/25/2016
|
|
GPO
Oct 11 2017
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the 61 motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/11/2017. (Howard, H.) |
|
|
GPO
Jan 22 2019
ORDER granting 82 Motion to Compel. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/22/2019. (Constantine, A.) |
|
|
GPO
Jun 21 2019
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Plaintiffs' 96 motion for class certification is GRANTED to the extent set forth in this ruling and Fraser's 108 motion to strike the declarations of Plaintiffs' experts is DENIED AS MOOT. In addition, because the parties have not yet had a chance to comment on the modified class definition, they may, by July 5, 2019, file briefs not exceeding 10 pages in which they address any new issues raised by the modified class definition that the Court has not already addressed in this decision.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 6/21/2019. (Ram, Megha) |
|
|
GPO
May 04 2020
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, Fraser's motion to decertify the class as to damages is DENIED without prejudice. This case will proceed on a bifurcated basis, and the trial currently scheduled for August will be focused on liability.Significant questions remain regarding the scope of the liability trial and the extent to which it should include some issues related to damages that might be resolvable on a class-wide basis. On these questions the Court would benefit from further briefing. By May 25, 2020, the parties are directed to submit supplemental briefs of no more than twenty-five pages addressing the following issues:(1) Should any discrete issues pertaining to damages be determined by the jury in the class-wide liability trial? For example, should the reliability of the ZenCloud database be determined by the jury? Which other damages-related issues, if any, should be determined in the class-wide liability trial? The parties should also address whether trying any such issues during the liability phase raises concerns under the Reexamination Clause of the Seventh Amendment.(2) What questions should the Court decide as a matter of law during the liability phase of this case? Of these, which questions should the Court decide prior to trial, and which questions should it decide after hearing the evidence but prior to approving the final jury instructions? Each party should address the merits of any questions it would have the Court decide prior to trial.Reply briefs of no more than ten pages will be due by June 8, 2020.Finally, as the Court discussed with the parties at the conclusion of oral argument, although the trial remains scheduled for August 5, 2020, and the Court has set other trial-related deadlines, there is some uncertainty about these dates at this time because of the current pandemic. In addition, the Court recognizes that the briefing schedule set forth above will require the parties to incur additional time and expense in litigating this case. Therefore, if the parties would prefer to use the next month or two to engage in any settlement discussions, the Court is prepared to accommodate such a request, and would even consider moving the trial date if that is necessary. Should the parties wish to make such a request, they must file, within 14 days of this ruling, a joint statement certifying that (1) counsel have conferred with their clients and each other, (2) the parties wish to proceed to mediation, (3) the parties are willing to participate in settlement efforts at such mediation in good faith, and (4) counsel believe that a mediation stands at least a reasonable chance of resolving the case without trial. Any such statement should also indicate whether the parties seek the Court's assistance in arranging for a mediator (i.e., a U.S. Magistrate Judge or Court-appointed Parajudicial Officer) or whether they wish to pursue private mediation on their own.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/4/2020. (Karpman, Michael) |
|
|
GPO
Oct 08 2021
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Pretrial Conference held on 10/8/2021;taking under advisement 254 Motion in Limine; taking under advisement 256 Motion in Limine; taking under advisement 258 Motion in Limine; taking under advisement 261 Motion in Limine; Motion Hearing held on 10/8/2021 re 261 MOTION in Limine Regarding Defendant Stuart Fraser filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet, 256 MOTION in Limine Regarding Scope of Class Trial filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet, 254 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Internet Discussions filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet, 258 MOTION in Limine filed by Stuart A. Fraser, 259 MOTION in Limine Regarding Class Representatives filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet. Total Time: 3 hours and 11 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.) |
|
|
GPO
Oct 15 2021
e: 2 hours and 49 minutes(Court Reporter J. Monette.) (Johnson, D.)Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Shea: Pretrial Conference held on 10/15/2021; 254 Motion in Limine; 261 Motion in Limine; Motion Hearing held on 10/15/2021 re 261 MOTION in Limine Regarding Defendant Stuart Fraser filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet, 254 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Internet Discussions filed by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas, Denis Marc Audet. Total Tim |
|
|
GPO
Jun 03 2022
ORDER. The plaintiffs' 351 motion for judgment as a matter of law is DENIED. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial is GRANTED with respect to Paycoin and DENIED with respect to Hashlets, Hashpoints, and Hashstakers. Within the next 14 days, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss their availability for a new trial with respect to Paycoin. The Court has availability to begin trial on each of the following dates: August 31, September 7, and September 14. If none of these dates work for the parties, they may propose alternative dates. The Court notes, however, that its schedule is quite full in 2022.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 6/3/2022. (Silva, Madeline) |
| Docket last updated: 03/12/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Thursday, September 05, 2024 | ||
| 399 | 399
motion
Disbursement of Funds
Thu 09/05 3:03 PM
MOTION for Disbursement of Funds to Claimants and Reimbursement of Claims Administration and Class Counsel Expenses by Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners. |
|
|
Att: 1
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Authorize Distribution of Net Settlement Funds to Claimants and Reimbursement of Claims Administration and Class Counsel Expenses,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Declaration of Russell F. Rennie in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Authorize Distribution of Net Settlement Funds to Claimants and Reimbursement of Claims Administration and Class Counsel Expenses,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Declaration of Morgan Kimball in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Authorize Distribution of Net Settlement Funds to Claimants and Reimbursement of Claims Administration and Class Counsel Expenses,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Exhibits A-K to Declaration of Morgan Kimball,
|
||
|
Att: 5
Text of Proposed Order
|
||