Audet et al v. Garza et al
Plaintiff: Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners and Jason Vargas
Defendant: Homero Joshua Garza, Stuart A. Fraser, GAW Miners, LLC and Zenminer, LLC
Case Number: 3:2016cv00940
Filed: June 15, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: New Haven
Presiding Judge: Michael P. Shea
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 78
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 206 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 l iability.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 bene fit 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 determ ined 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 par ties 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 phas e 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 questi ons 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 fo rth 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 the ir 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)
June 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 141 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 DENI ED 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)
January 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 127 ORDER granting 82 Motion to Compel. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/22/2019. (Constantine, A.)
October 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 72 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.)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Audet et al v. Garza et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Homero Joshua Garza
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stuart A. Fraser
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GAW Miners, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Zenminer, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Denis Marc Audet
Represented By: Matthew B. Allen
Represented By: Seth D. Ard
Represented By: Kathryn P. Hoek
Represented By: Robert A. Izard, Jr.
Represented By: Mark P. Kindall
Represented By: Marc M. Seltzer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Pfeiffer
Represented By: Matthew B. Allen
Represented By: Seth D. Ard
Represented By: Kathryn P. Hoek
Represented By: Robert A. Izard, Jr.
Represented By: Mark P. Kindall
Represented By: Marc M. Seltzer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dean Allen Shinners
Represented By: Matthew B. Allen
Represented By: Seth D. Ard
Represented By: Kathryn P. Hoek
Represented By: Robert A. Izard, Jr.
Represented By: Mark P. Kindall
Represented By: Marc M. Seltzer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jason Vargas
Represented By: Matthew B. Allen
Represented By: Seth D. Ard
Represented By: Kathryn P. Hoek
Represented By: Robert A. Izard, Jr.
Represented By: Mark P. Kindall
Represented By: Marc M. Seltzer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?