MARA failed to establish amount in controversy
Company: Marathon Digital
The claim, verbatim
The court held that MARA did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met.
Source (primary)
Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. — Entry #37: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court determines that the Findings, Conclusions, and… (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-10-15)Live source ↗
Quote: “it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met.”
How we checked this
Checked on October 16, 2026. The cited source supports every part of this claim.
The order agrees that MARA failed to establish the amount in controversy needed for diversity jurisdiction. It refers to the $75,000 threshold when describing MARA's objections.
Confirmed in the source:
- The court held that MARA did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met
- The amount-in-controversy requirement was the basis for diversity jurisdiction
- The threshold at issue was $75,000
What we did: Read our cached copy of RECAP (https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717.37.0.pdf) in full (8,903 characters, retrieved October 15, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.
Additional evidence
confirms Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. — Entry #37: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court determines that the Findings, Conclusions, and…
Quote: “it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met.”