Bernard v. Theil — Entry #39: RESPONSE to 36 Motion by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D
Case: Bernard v. Theil nvd · 2:22-cv-00305
filed February 18, 2022
What this document is
Docket entry #39 · filed May 27, 2022
RESPONSE to 36 Motion by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, Fred Theil, Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.. Replies due by 6/3/2022. (Mercera, Maria) (Entered: 05/27/2022)
Who is involved
- Marathon Digital Holdings, INC. [tracked: Marathon Digital]
- Fred Theil
- Georges Antoun
- Jay Leupp
- Kevin Denuccio
- Kimberly Bernard
- Merrick D. Okamoto
- Roy Strassman
- Said Ouissal
- Sarita James
- Simeon Salzman
Why we have it
We follow this case because a company we track is a party: Marathon Digital (listed as “Marathon Digital Holdings, INC.”). We checked the full party list on September 29, 2026 and confirmed the match.
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 02, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
7 page(s), 27,985 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 7
1 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027
Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695
2 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
3 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
4 Telephone: 702.214.2100
Facsimile: 702.214.2101
5 Email: jjp@pisanellibice.com
Email: dls@pisanellibice.com
6 Email: mmm@pisanellibice.com
7 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)
8 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
9 767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
10 Telephone: 212.310.8770
Facsimile: 212.310.8007
11 Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com
Email: stephen.radin@weil.com
12
PISANELLI BICE
Email: caroline.zalka@weil.com
13 Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun,
Kevin DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp,
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
14 Merrick D. Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon
Salzman, and Fred Thiel, and Nominal Defendant
15 Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
18 KIMBERLY BERNARD, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK
MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
19 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),
20 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF
v. NOS. 34, 35, AND 36) TO
21 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD
FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY
22 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, STAY MAY 31, 2022 DEADLINE TO
SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO
23 SIMEON SALZMAN, DISMISS
24 Defendants,
-and-
25
MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
26 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),
27 Nominal Defendant.
28
1
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 7
1 ROY STRASSMAN, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No.: 2:22-cv-00724-ART-EJY
MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
2 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),
3 Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF
v. NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE,
4 APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND
FRED THIEL, GEORGES ANTOUN, KEVIN INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25,
5 DENUCCIO, SARITA JAMES, JAY LEUPP, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
SAID OUISSAL, MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, and MOTIONS TO DISMISS
6 SIMEON SALZMAN,
7 Defendants,
-and-
8
MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
9 MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC.),
10 Nominal Defendant.
11
12 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
PISANELLI BICE
13 These are almost word-for-word identical shareholder derivative actions in which plaintiffs
14 purport to sue eight individuals on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15 (“Marathon”). The lawsuit besmirches the names of these eight individuals, alleging that they
16 breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Marathon. The claims are meritless.
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 17 Among other things, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.138(7) requires that a claim against a director or officer
18 of a Nevada corporation allege “intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.” No
19 intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violation of law is alleged in plaintiffs’ complaints.
20 Marathon and Defendants are entitled to have their motions to dismiss heard. Plaintiffs
21 have had Defendants’ moving papers since April 4, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Court set a
22 deadline for a response in the Bernard action: May 31, 2022. The Local Rules require a response
23 in the Strassman action on May 25, 2022; that date has passed. Marathon and Defendants offered
24 the plaintiff in the Strassman action an extension until May 31, so that the two near-identical
25 complaints could be briefed in one rather than two rounds of briefing. Plaintiffs rejected that offer.
26 Instead, plaintiffs seek – and appear to have granted themselves – indefinite extensions of
27 time. In plaintiffs’ world, the filing of two near-identical complaints (instead of the usual practice,
28 one complaint with two plaintiffs) entitles plaintiffs to an indefinite time to file a formal
2
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 7
1 consolidated complaint and exempts them from complying with court deadlines for responses to
2 motions to dismiss. Upon learning of plaintiffs’ position, Marathon and Defendants offered to
3 stipulate to consolidation with a deadline for filing a consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs refused to
4 stipulate or propose a deadline. Plaintiffs instead filed multiple motions for the obvious purpose
5 of delay: stipulations take days; briefing and decisions on motions take months.
6 Today is May 27, 2022. If plaintiffs need a short amount of time beyond the May 31, 2022
7 deadline to commit to dates for a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs’
8 current complaints and briefing a new motion to dismiss, they need only ask. Marathon and
9 Defendants will extend plaintiffs’ counsel every reasonable professional courtesy – but not the
10 many weeks plaintiffs seek by moving for consolidation rather than stipulating to consolidation.
11 If plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will retroactively extend deadlines,
12 then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs’ actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions
PISANELLI BICE
13 asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the Court chooses to forgive
14 plaintiffs’ default, the Court should order that plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint within seven
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15 (7) days of the Court’s Order and respond to any renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one
16 (21) days of the filing of the renewed motion.
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT
18 On February 18, 2022, plaintiff Kimberly Bernard commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-305-
19 RFB-NJK. ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2022, service was effectuated. ECF No. 6. On April 4, 2022,
20 Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bernard action. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff
21 Bernard requested two months to oppose the motion to dismiss, and the parties stipulated to a May
22 31, 2022 due date for plaintiff’s opposition. ECF No. 18. On April 18, 2022, the Court so ordered
23 the schedule. ECF No. 26.
24 On May 5, 2022, plaintiff Roy Strassman commenced Case No. 2:22-cv-724-ART-EJY.
25 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Strassman’s complaint copied, nearly word-for-word, the entirety of the com-
26 plaint filed by Plaintiff Bernard, as follows, ignoring the deficiencies identified in the motion to
27 dismiss the Bernard complaint filed on April 4, 2022:
28
3
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 7
1 Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman Bernard Strassman
Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶ Compl. ¶
2 1 1 24 24 47 47 70 73
2 2 25 25 48 48 71 74
3 3 3 26 26 49 49 72 75
4 4 27 27 50 50 73 76
4 5 5 28 28 51 51 74 77
6 6 29 29 52 52 75 78
5 7 7 30 30 53 55 76 79
8 8 31 31 54 56 77 80
6 9 9 32 32 55 57 78 81
10 10 33 33 56 58 79 82
7 11 11 34 34 57 59 80 83
12 12 35 35 58 60 81 84
8 13 13 36 36 59 61 82 85
14 14 37 37 60 63 83 86
9 15 15 38 38 61 64 84 87
16 16 39 39 62 65 85 88
10 17 17 40 40 63 66 86 89
18 18 41 41 64 67 87 90
11 19 19 42 42 65 68 88 91
20 20 43 43 66 69 89 92
12 21 21 44 44 67 70 90 93
PISANELLI BICE
22 22 45 45 68 71 91 94
13 23 23 46 46 69 72 92 95
14 The Strassman complaint made just four changes to the Bernard complaint: (1) the Strassman
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15 complaint double-spaces rather than single-spaces block quotes; (2) the Strassman complaint
16 replaces female gender pronouns for the plaintiff with male gender pronouns; (3) the Strassman
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 17 complaint corrects a typo (the Bernard complaint stated in paragraph 60 that “the Company Board
18 was comprised of eight (6) members,” while the Strassman complaint replaces “eight (6)
19 members” with “six (6) members”); and (4) the Strassman complaint skips paragraph numbers 53,
20 54, and 62 in its numbering of paragraphs, resulting in a 95 paragraph complaint rather than a 92
21 paragraph complaint.
22 On May 11, 2022, Marathon and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Strassman action
23 on the same grounds that Marathon and Defendants moved to dismiss the Bernard action.
24 Strassman ECF No. 11. On May 17, 2022, the undersigned counsel proposed briefing the identical
25 motion to dismiss on the same schedule the Court ordered in the Bernard action. Radin Decl. ¶ 3.
26 On May 18, 2022, plaintiffs’ counsel informed the undersigned counsel that plaintiffs intended to
27 move to consolidate the cases and file a consolidated complaint before briefing the pending
28 motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel offered to stipulate to consolidation and asked
4
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 7
1 plaintiff’s counsel to propose a date for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Id. ¶ 4.
2 Plaintiff’s counsel declined to stipulate or propose a date. Id. Instead, on May 23, 2022,
3 plaintiffs filed multiple motions. The motions seek (1) consolidation – to which Marathon and
4 Defendants had offered to stipulate, (2) a “Co-Lead Derivative Counsel” stamp of approval by the
5 Court – completely unnecessary but something to which Marathon and Defendants would have
6 stipulated to if asked, and (3) the only contested subject of the motions – a stay postponing the
7 deadlines set in the Court’s April 18, 2022 Order, indefinitely. Bernard ECF No. 34, 35, and 36;
8 Strassman ECF No. 19, 20.
9 Marathon and Defendants oppose the indefinite stay plaintiffs seek and appear to have
10 granted themselves notwithstanding the Court’s April 18, 2022 Order. Counsel for the plaintiffs in
11 the two actions admit that “from the inception of the litigation” they have been “coordinating
12 together.” Bernard ECF No. 34 at 3; Strassman ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiffs do not explain why
PISANELLI BICE
13 two plaintiffs “coordinating together” chose to file a second near-identical complaint a month after
14 a motion to dismiss their first complaint had been filed, rather than opposing the motion to dismiss
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15 or addressing deficiencies in their new complaint. Plaintiffs do not explain why the drafting of a
16 consolidated complaint combining two near-identical complaints would require more than an hour
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 17 or two of work by any one of the four law firms representing plaintiffs.
18 Deadlines in Court Orders should be enforced. If plaintiffs choose to oppose the pending
19 motions to dismiss with a consolidated complaint addressing the deficiencies in plaintiffs’ existing
20 complaints, they may do so on May 31, 2022 – the date the Court so ordered on April 18, 2022.
21 Marathon and Defendants will promptly respond to any such consolidated complaint. If plaintiffs
22 need a short amount of additional time to oppose the pending motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ two
23 complaints, or commit to a date for a consolidated complaint curing the deficiencies in plaintiffs’
24 first two complaints, Marathon and Defendants will extend every reasonable professional courtesy.
25 But if plaintiffs choose to default in the hope that the Court will extend the deadlines plaintiffs
26 have chosen to ignore, then the Court should dismiss plaintiffs’ actions with prejudice to plaintiffs
27 re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted here in this Court or any other Court. If the
28 Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs’ default, the Court should order, as stated above, that plaintiffs
5
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 7
1 file a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the Court’s Order and respond to any
2 renewed motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion.
3 CONCLUSION
4 For all of these reasons, Marathon and Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motion to indefinitely
5 extend the deadlines set in this Court’s April 18, 2022 Order and request that the Court dismiss
6 plaintiffs’ actions with prejudice to plaintiffs re-filing new actions asserting the claims asserted
7 here in this Court or any other Court, or, if the Court chooses to forgive plaintiffs’ default, the
8 alternative relief stated above.
9 DATED this 27th day of May 2022.
10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC
11
By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera
12 James J. Pisanelli, Bar No. 4027
Debra L. Spinelli, Bar No. 9695
PISANELLI BICE
13 M. Magali Mercera, Bar No. 11742
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15 -and-
16 Jonathan D. Polkes (admitted pro hac vice)
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
Stephen A. Radin (admitted pro hac vice)
17 Caroline Hickey Zalka (admitted pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
18 767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
19
Attorneys for Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin
20 DeNuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp, Merrick D.
Okamoto, Said Ouissal, Simeon Salzman, and Fred
21 Thiel, and Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital
Holdings, Inc.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006
Case 2:22-cv-00305-RFB-NJK Document 39 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 7
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC and that, on this
3 27th day of May 2022, I caused to be served via the Court’s CM/ECF program true and correct
4 copies of the above and foregoing RESPONSE TO MOTION (ECF NO. 34, 35, AND 36) TO
5 CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 31,
6 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Bernard action and
7 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 19, 20) TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINT LEAD
8 COUNSEL, AND INDEFINITELY STAY MAY 25, 2022 DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
9 MOTIONS TO DISMISS in the Strassman action to all parties via electronic service.
10
/s/ Cinda Towne
11 An employee of PISANELLI BICE PLLC
12
PISANELLI BICE
13
14
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
15
16
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
WEIL:\98647916\1\61707.0006