jain.com
Public record. We host this document directly; the copy served here does not depend on any third party. Retrieved October 23, 2026.
Read the documentAlso at the filing system ↗

Network Racing Pty Ltd v. Iren Limited — Entry #1: CIVIL CASE DOCKETED

Case: Network Racing Pty Ltd v. Iren Limited ca3 · 26-1560

filed March 20, 2026

What this document is

Docket entry #1 · filed March 20, 2026

CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellants Nahi Beaini, De Stoop Investments Pty Ltd, LRJ Superannuation Fund and Network Racing Pty Ltd in District Court No. 2:22-cv-07273. (PDB) [Entered: 03/20/2026 01:17 PM]

Why we have it

We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:

We bought this filing from PACER (the federal courts’ paid records system) for $0.10 on October 23, 2026; the purchase also placed it in the free RECAP archive for everyone.

URL
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca3.127482/gov.uscourts.ca3.127482.1.2.pdf
Kind
court_filing
Publisher
RECAP (purchased via PACER)
Published
2026-03-16 00:00:00-04:00
Retrieved
2026-10-23 00:43:18.224752-04:00
HTTP status
200
MIME
application/pdf
Bytes
183321
SHA-256
9548b4914c999deecd65552d128308ac23351a4f918f3e231f51cfc24399958d

Document text

1 page(s), 1,622 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.

Full text
Case: 26-1560 Document:
Case 2:22-cv-07273-ES-MAH  Document1-2110 Page: 1 02/18/26
                                            Filed    Date Filed: 03/20/2026
                                                              Page  1 of 1 PageID: 4097


  Not for Publication

                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                  DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


  NETWORK RACING PTY. LTD., et al.,

                      Plaintiffs,
                                                     Civil Action No. 22-7273 (ES) (MAH)
                      v.
                                                                    ORDER
  IREN LIMITED, et al.,

                      Defendants.


  SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

          Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

  (D.E. No. 83). Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, and having held oral

  argument on February 4, 2026, and for the reasons set forth during oral argument and in the

  Court’s oral opinion on record dated February 18, 2026, (D.E. Nos. 107, 108, & 109),

          IT IS on this 18th day of February 2026,

          ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is

  GRANTED; and it is further

          ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice;

  and it is further

          ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case.


                                                            s/Esther Salas
                                                            Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.