Audet et al v. Garza et al
| Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners and Jason Vargas |
| Homero Joshua Garza, Stuart A. Fraser, GAW Miners, LLC and Zenminer, LLC |
| 3:2016cv00940 |
| June 15, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Michael P. Shea |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
370
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER granting 82 Motion to Compel. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/22/2019. (Constantine, A.)
|
|
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.)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
