Thompson v. Leverton — Entry #11: ORDER: Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C

Case 1:24-cv-02542-GHW                  Document 11          Filed 04/23/24   Page 1 of 2

                                                                          USDC SDNY
                                                                          DOCUMENT
                                                                          ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                          DOC #: _________________
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                                                                          DATE FILED: 4/23/2024
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
                                                                  :
JEFFREY THOMPSON, derivatively on behalf of Hut 8 :
Corp.,                                                            :
                                                                  :         1:24-cv-02542-GHW
                                                  Plaintiff,      :
                                                                  :              ORDER
                              -v-                                 :
                                                                  :
JAMIE LEVERTON, et al.,                                           :
                                                                  :
                                               Defendants. :
                                                                  :
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

         Plaintiff commenced this shareholder derivative action on April 3, 2024, alleging that

Defendants made or participated in making materially false and misleading statements regarding the

assets, profitability, and risks of Hut 8 Corp. (“Hut 8”). Dkt. No. 9 ¶¶ 4–8, 10 (“Amended

Complaint”). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants “caused [Hut 8] to fail to maintain adequate

internal controls while [certain of the] Defendants engaged in improper insider sales . . . .” Id. ¶ 9.

Plaintiff asserts state law claims against Defendants and a claim of contribution under Section 21D

of the federal Exchange Act against two of the Defendants. Id. at 50–54. Hut 8 is the Nominal

Defendant in this matter. Id. ¶ 19. The remaining Defendants are corporate directors and officers

of Hut 8 or its predecessor (the “Individual Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 20–47.

         The Amended Complaint alleges that venue is proper in this District “because the alleged

misstatements and wrongs complained of herein entered this District, the Defendants have

conducted business in this District, and Defendants’ actions have had an effect in this District.” Id.

¶ 17. Plaintiff does not identify his state of residence. Id. ¶ 18. Hut 8 is a Delaware corporation,

with its principal executive offices in Miami, Florida. Id. ¶ 19. The Individual Defendants are not

alleged to reside in or have any relation to this District. There are no allegations in the Amended


         Case 1:24-cv-02542-GHW                     Document 11             Filed 04/23/24           Page 2 of 2


Complaint describing the occurrence of events or the residence of any defendant in the Southern

District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b) (“The Southern District comprises the counties of

Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester . . . .”). 1 Miami

is located in Dade County, which is in the Southern District of Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 89 (“The

Southern District comprises the counties of Broward, Dade, Highlands, Indian River, Martin,

Monroe, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, and Saint Lucie. Court for the Southern District shall be held at

Fort Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Key West, Miami, and West Palm Beach.”).

         Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is

filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of

justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”).

         Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than April 30, 2024 as to why this

action should not be transferred to the Southern District of Florida. In the alternative, if Plaintiff is

willing to transfer this action to the Southern District of Florida, the Court requests that Plaintiff

submit a letter stating that it consents to the transfer of this action to the Southern District of

Florida no later than April 30, 2024. Plaintiff is also directed to serve a copy of this order on all

Defendants in this action and to retain proof of service.

         SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2024
       New York, New York                                             __________________________________
                                                                             GREGORY H. WOODS
                                                                            United States District Judge

1 The only reference to this District is the existence of a separate federal securities fraud class action against Hut 8 and

two of the Individual Defendants that was filed in this District, Mayiras v. Hut 8 Corp., No. 24-cv-904-VM (S.D.N.Y.).
On April 5, 2024, Judge Victor Marrero, who presides over the separate securities fraud action, declined to accept this
case as related to the securities fraud action and this case was reassigned to this Court. The Amended Complaint also
references a Bitcoin mining facility that Hut 8 allegedly owns and operates located in Niagara Falls, New York. See, e.g.,
Amended Complaint ¶ 80. Niagara Falls is located in the Western District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“The
Western District comprises the counties of Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston,
Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates.”).

                                                              2