Ciceri v. Bradford — Entry #101: ORDER
Case: Ciceri v. Bradford nvd · 2:21-cv-01004
filed May 26, 2021
What this document is
Docket entry #101 · filed December 12, 2024
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THIS ACTION IS HEREBY DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, as to all claims, causes of action and parties with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. This order of dismissal is not intended to, and does not, dismiss or compromise the claims in the consolidated derivative action pending in the Eight Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada: In re CleanSpark Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. A-23-866051-B (Dept. 13). All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/12/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
Who is involved
- CleanSpark, Inc. [tracked: CleanSpark]
- Special Litigation Committee of CleanSpark, Inc. [tracked: CleanSpark]
- Andrea Ciceri
- Larry McNeill
- Lori L. Love
- Mark Perna
- Roger P. Bynon
- S. Matthew Schultz
- Thomas L. Wood
- Zachary K. Bradford
Why we have it
We follow this case because a company we track is a party: CleanSpark (listed as “CleanSpark, Inc.”, “Special Litigation Committee of CleanSpark, Inc.”). We checked the full party list on September 28, 2026 and confirmed the match.
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 27, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
3 page(s), 8,813 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 101 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 3
1 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
Robert Hernquist, Nevada Bar No. 10616
2
James Kohl, Nevada Bar No. 5692
3 rwh@h2law.com; jak@h2law.com
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1000
4 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5980
5 Telephone: (702) 257-1483
Facsimile: (702) 567-1568
6
KAPLAN RICE LLP
7 Howard J. Kaplan, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Michelle A. Rice, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
8
142 W. 57th Street, Suite 4A
9 New York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Intervenor Special Litigation
10
Committee of CleanSpark, Inc.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
IN RE CLEANSPARK, INC. Case No. 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW
14
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
15 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
This Document Relates to:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
16 ALL ACTIONS (WITH PREJUDICE)
17
Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Andrea Ciceri
18
and Mark Perna (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby
19
dismiss the above-captioned consolidated matter in its entirety, with prejudice as to all claims,
20
causes of action and parties and with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
21
This dismissal includes the dismissal of all claims asserted in the following actions, which
22
have been consolidated into this action:
23
24 Andrea Ciceri, derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc. v. Zachary Bradford, Lori
Love, Matthew Schutz, Roger Beynon, Larry McNeill and Tom Wood and Nominal
25 Defendant CleanSpark, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01004, which was filed on May 26,
2021; and
26
Mark Perna, derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc. v. Zachary Bradford, Lori
27 Love, Matthew Schutz, Roger Beynon, Larry McNeill and Tom Wood and Nominal
Defendant CleanSpark, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01181, which was filed on June 22,
28 2021.
1
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 101 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 3
1 The dismissal is not intended to, and does not, dismiss or compromise the claims in the
2 consolidated derivative action pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County,
3 Nevada:
4 In re CleanSpark Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. A-23-866051-B (Dept. 13)
(“Nevada State Derivative Action”).
5
Notice of this voluntary dismissal is not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1(c) because
6
neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’ counsel have received or will receive any compensation for this
7
dismissal, and because other shareholders who are plaintiffs in the Nevada State Derivative
8
Action, which remains pending, make substantially similar claims as the Plaintiffs. The SLC
9
takes no position on this issue.
10
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED:
11
WILK AUSLANDER LLP THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
12
13 By: /s/ Aari Itzkowitz By: /s/ Timothy Brown
Jay S. Auslander (pro hac vice) Timothy Brown (pro hac vice)
14 Natalie Shkolnik (pro hac vice) 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
Aari Itzkowitz (pro hac vice) New York, NY 10017
15 Michael Van Riper (pro hac vice)
825 Eighth Avenue, Ste. 2900 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
16
New York, New York 10019
Patrick R. Leverty
17 Mark J. Connot, Nevada Bar No. 10010 LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.
Colleen E. McCarty, Nevada Bar No. 13186 Reno Gould House
18
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 832 Willow Street
19 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Ste. 700 Reno, NV 89502
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
20 Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Defendants
21 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Phillip Kim (pro hac vice)
22 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
By: /s/ Robert Hernquist New York, NY 10016
23 Robert Hernquist, Nevada Bar No. 10616 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
James Kohl, Nevada Bar No. 5692
24
KAPLAN RICE LLP
25 Howard J. Kaplan, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
26 Michelle A. Rice, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
27 Attorneys for Intervenor Special Litigation
Committee of CleanSpark, Inc.
28
2
Case 2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW Document 101 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 3