Defendants allege MARA delayed suit and failed to join petitioners
Company: Marathon Digital
The claim, verbatim
As affirmative defenses, defendants allege that MARA failed to mitigate damages by delaying action for months despite knowing of the challenged acts. They also allege that MARA lacks standing to stop an election and failed to name the incorporation petitioners as required by FRCP Rule 19(a).
Source (primary)
<mark>MARA Holdings, Inc</mark>. v. Hood County, Texas — Entry #11 (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-11-01)Live source ↗
Quote: “Plaintiffs failed to name any of the Petitioners in their lawsuit, which violates F.R.C.P. Rule 19(a).”
How we checked this
This claim has not yet been checked assertion-by-assertion against its source. It carries a cited source and quote, but the deeper check has not run. When it does, the result appears here whatever it says.
Additional evidence
confirms <mark>MARA Holdings, Inc</mark>. v. Hood County, Texas — Entry #11
Quote: “Plaintiffs failed to name any of the Petitioners in their lawsuit, which violates F.R.C.P. Rule 19(a).”