{"cached_at":"2026-09-30T09:56:02.426345+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69197367","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","id":69197367,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cacd/","court_id":"cacd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9050/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2024-09-25T22:32:38.832410-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:09.651340-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Michelle Williams Court","referred_to_str":"Charles F. Eick","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:56:44.263847-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-09-25","date_terminated":"2026-05-28","date_last_filing":"2026-05-28","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD.","case_name_full":"","slug":"electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd","docket_number":"2:24-cv-08280","docket_number_core":"2408280","docket_number_raw":"2:24-cv-08280","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"MWC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"E","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"942403","cause":"18:1836(b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets","nature_of_suit":"880 Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016)","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-09-25T22:32:38.828810-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15119040/","id":15119040,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145571/","attorney_id":10145571,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145571/","attorney_id":10145571,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145572/","attorney_id":10145572,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145572/","attorney_id":10145572,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-02-26T19:59:27.462174-08:00","date_modified":"2025-02-26T19:59:27.462197-08:00","name":"Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14629726/","id":14629726,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9888322/","attorney_id":9888322,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9888322/","attorney_id":9888322,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145573/","attorney_id":10145573,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145574/","attorney_id":10145574,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847824/","attorney_id":9847824,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a British Virgin Islands corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T14:19:54.245611-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T14:19:54.245635-07:00","name":"Proton Management LTD.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628031/","id":14628031,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.838295-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.838302-07:00","name":"Lucas Vasconcelos","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628030/","id":14628030,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.832100-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.832107-07:00","name":"Enrique Romualdez","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628029/","id":14628029,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.826695-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.826702-07:00","name":"Santhiran Naidoo","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628028/","id":14628028,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.818286-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.818293-07:00","name":"Rafael Dias Monteleone","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628027/","id":14628027,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.811154-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.811162-07:00","name":"Michael Alexander Holmes","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628026/","id":14628026,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a California Corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.802422-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.802428-07:00","name":"Ilios Corp.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628025/","id":14628025,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342643/","attorney_id":10342643,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9847962/","attorney_id":9847962,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9908412/","attorney_id":9908412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.796695-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.796703-07:00","name":"Thomas Patrick Furlong","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14628023/","id":14628023,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9840139/","attorney_id":9840139,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9840139/","attorney_id":9840139,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342641/","attorney_id":10342641,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9841427/","attorney_id":9841427,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145568/","attorney_id":10145568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145568/","attorney_id":10145568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9841428/","attorney_id":9841428,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9841428/","attorney_id":9841428,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10342642/","attorney_id":10342642,"date_action":"2026-04-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9841429/","attorney_id":9841429,"date_action":"2025-01-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9841429/","attorney_id":9841429,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145569/","attorney_id":10145569,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145569/","attorney_id":10145569,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10010125/","attorney_id":10010125,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145570/","attorney_id":10145570,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10145570/","attorney_id":10145570,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10010126/","attorney_id":10010126,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","docket_id":69197367,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation\ndoing business as\nSwan Bitcoin","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.732725-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-26T08:16:15.732732-07:00","name":"Electric Solidus, Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466088799/","id":466088799,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481312221/","id":481312221,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/284/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:43.362268-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.656114-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"284","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:43.334705-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.618900-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":284,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-26.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"FOR COURT USE ONLY: STATISTICAL CORRECTION regarding Order 283 granting 254 Application to Seal Document. (yl) (Entered: 05/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466088798/","id":466088798,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481312220/","id":481312220,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/267/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:42.412854-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.311746-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"267","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text Only Scheduling Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:42.384298-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.282347-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":267,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING NOTICE AND (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Michelle Williams Court: The Court, on its own motion, ADVANCES the hearing on Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 263 ) to May 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jec) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466088797/","id":466088797,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481312219/","id":481312219,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/262/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:42.090616-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:58.939497-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"262","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text Only Scheduling Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T17:58:42.055110-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:58.897830-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":262,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING NOTICE AND (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Michelle Williams Court: The Court, on its own motion, ADVANCES the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 253 ) and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 257 ) to May 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mal) TEXT ONLY ENTRY Modified on 4/28/2026 (tj). (Entered: 04/24/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465503998/","id":465503998,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480709675/","id":480709675,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/285/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-28T12:06:57.801877-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.780944-07:00","sha1":"3ae4ca644832fd5ad698d9015df1fffe4cac6d70","page_count":17,"file_size":281335,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.942403/gov.uscourts.cacd.942403.285.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.942403/gov.uscourts.cacd.942403.285.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E         Document 285 Filed 05/28/26                 Page 1 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12354\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                                   Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:     Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n\n\nPresent: The Honorable Michelle Williams Court, United States District Judge\n\n\n                   T. Jackson                                          Not Reported\n                  Deputy Clerk                                   Court Reporter / Recorder\n\n         Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:               Attorneys Present for Defendants:\n                      N/A                                              N/A\n\n\nProceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING\nIN PART DEFENDANTS\u2019 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (DKT. [276]-4),\nGRANTING PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE CASE\n(DKT. [253]), DENYING DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS\n(DKT. [257]), DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT\nON THE PLEADINGS (DKT. [263]), AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE [JS-6]\n\n       There are three (3) motions before the Court. First, Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.\nd/b/a Swan Bitcoin (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cSwan\u201d) has filed a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss\n(\u201cMVD\u201d) the case, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Dkt.\n# 253 (\u201cMVD\u201d). Defendants opposed the MVD, Dkt. # 276 (\u201cOpp\u2019n to MVD\u201d), and\nPlaintiff replied, Dkt. # 279 (\u201cReply ISO MVD\u201d). Second, Defendants Proton Management,\nLtd., Thomas Patrick Furlong, Ilios Corporation, Michael Alexander Holmes, Rafael Dias\nMonteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, and Lucas Vasconcelos (collectively,\n\u201cDefendants\u201d) 1 filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (\u201cSanctions Motion\u201d). Dkt. # 257\n(\u201cMot. for Sanctions\u201d). The Sanctions Motion is also fully briefed. See Dkt. # 272 (\u201cOpp\u2019n\nto Mot. for Sanctions\u201d); Dkt. # 281 (\u201cReply ISO Mot. for Sanctions\u201d). And finally, the\nindividual Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (\u201cMJOP\u201d),\n\n1\n The Court refers to Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Ilios Corporation, Michael Alexander\nHolmes, Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, and Lucas Vasconcelos\nas the \u201cIndividual Defendants\u201d in this case.\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                          Civil Minutes \u2013 General                           Page 1 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E         Document 285 Filed 05/28/26             Page 2 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12355\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                               Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:     Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\nbrought pursuant to Rule 12(c). Dkt. # 263 (\u201cMJOP\u201d). Plaintiff opposed the MJOP, Dkt.\n# 273 (\u201cOpp\u2019n to MJOP\u201d); Dkt. # 282 (\u201cReply ISO MJOP\u201d). The Court finds this matter\nappropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R.\n7-15. After considering the papers, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN\nPART Defendants\u2019 Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. # 276-4), GRANTS Plaintiff\u2019s\nMotion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Case (Dkt. # 253), DENIES Defendants\u2019 Motion for\nRule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. # 257) and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants\u2019 Motion for\nJudgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. # 263). This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT\nPREJUDICE.\n\nI.       Background 2\n\n       Swan is an \u201cindustry-leading Bitcoin financial services company that helps\nindividuals and businesses purchase, save, and invest in Bitcoin through its platform.\u201d First\nAm. Compl., Dkt. # 101 (\u201cFAC\u201d) \u00b6 17. Prior to the \u201cscheme\u201d at the heart of this case,\n\u201cSwan was also a leader in the field of Bitcoin mining.\u201d Id. This action arises after former\nSwan consultants \u201cdevised and executed a brazen . . . \u2018rain and hellfire\u2019\u201d scheme to \u201csteal\nSwan\u2019s entire billion-dollar Bitcoin mining business.\u201d Id. \u00b6 1.\n\n        On June 1, 2023, Cory Klippsten\u2014Swan\u2019s founder and CEO, id. \u00b6\u00b6 46\u201347\u2014learned\nof a Bitcoin mining site in Tasmania, Australia with \u201cgreat potential.\u201d Id. \u00b6 54. Klippsten\nand Holmes discussed securing funding for the site and \u201cagreed that Swan would work to\nsource investment for the fundraise.\u201d Id. The next day, the cryptocurrency company\n\u201cTether\u201d agreed to provide funding for Swan to expand operations at the site, \u201cwith Swan\nmanaging the mining investment.\u201d Id. \u00b6 54. Swan and Tether then entered into a joint\nventure known as \u201c2040 Energy,\u201d which \u201cwould govern the arrangement at that site, as\nmemorialized in a Shareholders Agreement [(\u2018SHA\u2019)][.]\u201d Id. \u00b6 55. Swan\u2019s then-Chief\nInvestment Officer (\u201cCIO\u201d), Raphael Zagury, also led this operation. Id. \u00b6 58. The success\nof this joint venture resulted in Swan expanding its mining operation\u2019s capacity. See id.\n\u00b6 115.\n\n        However, in the summer of 2024, Defendants began devising a scheme to, among\nother things, (1) download \u201call of Swan\u2019s confidential and proprietary business information\n\n2\n  The Court briefly summarizes the facts of this case only as relevant to the instant motions. For\na more thorough and detailed recitation of the facts, see Dkt. # 164 at 2\u20137.\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                          Civil Minutes \u2013 General                         Page 2 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E         Document 285 Filed 05/28/26          Page 3 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12356\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                           Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:     Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\nand trade secrets necessary to operate Swan\u2019s Bitcoin mining business\u201d; (2) create a new\ncompany called \u201cProton Management Ltd.\u201d (\u201cProton\u201d), which Zagury would operate as\nCEO alongside Swan\u2019s \u201cthen-Investment Director Defendant Naidoo as CIO, and which\nwould employ other Defendants and Swan conspirators\u201d; and (3) solicit \u201clegal cover\u201d from\nTether to claim that following the employees\u2019 departure, Swan \u201ccould no longer manage\nmining for 2040 Energy,\u201d requiring Tether to \u201cpush Swan out of its joint venture with\nTether, and insert Defendant Proton as Swan\u2019s replacement.\u201d Id. \u00b6 118(a)\u2013(c); see also id.\n\u00b6 122 (\u201cDefendants ultimately opted to steal Swan\u2019s mining business outright, and cut\nSwan out entirely.\u201d). The First Amended Complaint (\u201cFAC\u201d) alleges that individual\nDefendants Holmes, Naidoo, Zagury, and Lyons contacted \u201cother Swan consultants and\nemployees to recruit them into the scheme.\u201d Id. \u00b6 126. The FAC also alleges that in July\n2024, Defendants downloaded Swan\u2019s source code and highly confidential documents\nfrom Swan\u2019s Google Drive account, registered the website domain\n\u201cElektron-Energy.com,\u201d and filed documents to incorporate Proton in the British Virgin\nIslands. See id. \u00b6\u00b6 129\u201333. Further, in August 2024, Proton allegedly \u201cfiled a Certification\nof Incorporation in the British Virgin Islands,\u201d exported confidential business data off\nSwan\u2019s \u201cNotion\u201d platform, downloaded \u201chighly confidential monthly mining performance\ndata, proprietary financial records, and earnings reports\u201d from Swan\u2019s Google Drive,\ncloned Swan\u2019s BNOC source code, and \u201cdownloaded approximately 1,750 files from\nSwan\u2019s computer systems to an external hard drive[.]\u201d See id. \u00b6\u00b6 134\u201339. On August 8,\n2024, Swan employees resigned en masse. Id. \u00b6 141.\n\nII.      Procedural History\n\n       On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this action and on that same date, filed an\nex parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (\u201cTRO\u201d). See Dkts. # 1 & 8. The\nnext day, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application for Order for Expedited Discovery. Dkt.\n# 9. On October 4, 2024, U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu denied Plaintiff\u2019s Applications\nfor a TRO and an Order for Expedited Discovery, and set the matter for hearing on a\npreliminary injunction. Dkts. # 40 & 41. Plaintiff filed a renewed ex parte Application for\nOrder for Expedited Discovery on October 9, 2024, Dkt. # 43, and on October 16, 2024,\nJudge Hsu again denied Plaintiff\u2019s request, Dkt. # 54. On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff\nmoved for an Order Compelling the Individual Defendants to Return Plaintiff\u2019s Laptop\nComputers. Dkt. # 53. As Plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the laptops were\nSwan\u2019s property, the Court denied Plaintiff\u2019s motion. Dkt. # 63. On November 20, 2024,\nthis case was transferred to this Court. Dkt. # 65.\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                          Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 3 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26          Page 4 of 17 Page ID\n                                       #:12357\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                               CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                          Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n\n        On January 27, 2025 Plaintiff filed the operative FAC, asserting seven (7) causes of\naction against Defendants for: (1) Trade Secret Misappropriation under the Defend Trade\nSecrets Act (\u201cDTSA\u201d), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1836, et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) tortious\ninterference with contractual relations; (4) aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty;\n(5) unfair competition under California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code\n\u00a7\u00a7 17200, et seq.; (6) conversion; and (7) civil conspiracy. See FAC at 79\u201390. On February\n24, 2025 and February 25, 2025, respectively, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for\nLack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the alternative, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State\na Claim (\u201cMotion to Dismiss\u201d), Dkt. # 121; a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the\nCase, or in the alternative, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (\u201cMotion to Compel\u201d),\nDkt. # 122; and a Motion to Stay Case pending Determination of Threshold Issues in\nrelated proceedings in the United Kingdom (\u201cMotion to Stay\u201d), Dkt. # 124. The Court\ntook the motions under submission, Dkt. # 160, and issued an Order on April 9, 2025\ndenying in substantial part each motion. Dkt. # 164. In that Order, the Court granted the\nIndividual Defendants\u2019 Motion to Compel only as to Swan\u2019s conversion claim, see id. at\n12\u201314; denied Defendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, id. at 21;\ndismissed only Plaintiff\u2019s seventh claim for civil conspiracy against Defendant Proton\nalone, see id. at 29; and denied the Motion to Stay, id. at 33.\n\n       The Individual Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on April\n25, 2025, Dkt. # 180, and in light of the appeal, filed both a Motion to Stay Case Pending\nAppeal and an ex parte Application to Stay Case Pending Appeal Date and Briefing\nSchedule on May 16, 2025, Dkts. # 207 & 208. On May 2, 2025, Defendant Proton filed\na Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dkt. # 194, and on May 16, 2025, filed a Motion to Stay\nCase Pending Appeal, Dkt. # 206. On May 27, 2025, the Court stayed this case as to both\nthe Individual Defendants and Defendant Proton. Dkt. # 218. Plaintiff thereafter filed an\nex parte Application for a TRO on June 11, 2025, Dkt. # 222, and on June 17, 2025, the\nCourt denied Plaintiff\u2019s TRO request, but nonetheless lifted the discretionary stay as to\nDefendant Proton, Dkt. # 235. The Court then rescheduled Defendant Proton\u2019s Motion to\nCompel Arbitration, Dkt. # 194, and subsequently granted the Motion to Compel and\nstayed the case as to Defendant Proton on July 21, 2025. Dkt. # 250. In light of the stay,\nthe Court vacated the Final Pretrial Conference and trial date scheduled in this case. Dkt.\n# 252. On November 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the parties\u2019 stipulated motion to\ndismiss the appeal. Dkt. # 251.\n\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 4 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26             Page 5 of 17 Page ID\n                                       #:12358\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                              Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n         A.     UK Litigation\n\n        On January 10, 2025, Tether and 2040 Energy sought declaratory and injunctive\nrelief in the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England Wales King\u2019s\nBench Division Commercial Court (\u201cUK Court\u201d) (Claim No. CL-2025-000016). See Ex.\nG to MVD, Dkt. # 253-9 (\u201cParticulars of Claim\u201d) at 3\u20134, 26\u201328. First, they sought, among\nother things, a declaration that \u201c(i) 2040 Energy is the beneficial owner of the BitGo\nAccounts and their contents\u201d 3 and \u201cthat the Business Assets currently held by the Swan\nEmployees and Proton, are beneficially owned by 2040 Energy[.]\u201d 4 Id. \u00b6\u00b6 5.1.1\u20135.1.2.\nSecond, they sought a \u201cfinal injunction compelling Swan to transfer/deliver up the assets\nin the BitGo Accounts[.]\u201d Id. \u00b6 5.1.3.\n\n       On February 26, 2025, the UK Court issued an Order declining Tether and 2040\nEnergy\u2019s application for an injunction related to the Business Assets. Ex. D to Mot. for\nSanctions, Dkt. # 257-7 at 4. In that same Order, the UK Court scheduled a September\n2025 trial to determine ownership of the Business Assets, id. at 5, and further ordered that\nSwan shall not \u201cfile any summary judgment motion in the California Proceedings,\u201d seek a\npreliminary injunction in this case, nor \u201cuse the Business Assets . . . to exploit business\nopportunities otherwise than in accordance with the SHA[.]\u201d Id. at 6.\n\n        Swan then represents that in August 2025, it entered \u201cinto a stipulation in the UK\nlitigation\u201d to agree \u201cthat the Business Assets were owned by 2040 Energy,\u201d and that it\nwould separately \u201cinitiate arbitrations against Holmes, Zagury, and others.\u201d MVD at 19.\nAs a result, on September 9, 2025, the UK Court issued an Order declaring that the\n\u201cBusiness Assets are exclusively owned by and/or exclusively for use by or with the\n\n3\n 2040 Energy held several Bitcoin wallets, which \u201ccollected the Bitcoin earned by the business of\n2040 Energy.\u201d Particulars of Claim \u00b6 40.1. Those wallets were held with the cryptocurrency\nexchange provider, BitGo Inc. (\u201cBitGo\u201d) and \u201cwere made up of collection and treasury wallets.\u201d\nId. 2040 Energy had accounts with BitGo \u201cwhich contained USD fiat amounts and Tether tokens,\u201d\nand are collectively referred to as \u201cBitGo Accounts.\u201d Id.\n4\n The \u201cBusiness Assets\u201d refer to the \u201cproprietary\u201d aspects of 2040 Energy, including, a \u201cBitcoin\nNetwork Operating Center\u201d (\u201cBNOC\u201d), \u201ca bitcoin mining monitoring platform, . . . financial\nmodelling, data analytics and monitoring tools necessary\u201d for the Bitcoin mining business.\nParticulars of Claim \u00b6 23.\n\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                         Page 5 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E          Document 285 Filed 05/28/26           Page 6 of 17 Page ID\n                                         #:12359\n                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                 CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                             Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:      Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\nconsent of the Second Claimant.\u201d 5 Ex. S to MVD, Dkt. # 253-21 at 3. The UK Court\nfurther ordered that Swan \u201cwill not, now or in the future . . . pursue or prosecute any of its\nexisting claims in respect of the Business Assets currently being pursued in the California\nProceedings,\u201d and concluded that Swan was indeed \u201crequired to dismiss or withdraw the\nCalifornia Proceedings . . . without prejudice[.]\u201d Id. at 5.\n\n       Now pending are Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Case, brought\npursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Dkt. # 253, and Defendants\u2019 Sanctions Motion, Dkt. # 257, and\nMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. # 263. The motions are all fully briefed and\nripe for consideration and disposition.\n\nIII.     Legal Standards\n\n         A.     Rule 41(a)(2)\n\n        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that \u201can action may be dismissed\nat the plaintiff\u2019s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.\u201d Fed.\nR. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); see Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88 F.4th 1268, 1279 n.4 (9th Cir.\n2023). \u201cGenerally, Rule 41(a)(2) grants a district court discretion to dismiss a case with or\nwithout prejudice.\u201d Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1279 (footnote and citations omitted); Hargis v.\nFoster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002) (\u201cThat broad grant of discretion does not contain\na preference for one kind of dismissal or another.\u201d). \u201c[W]here the request is to dismiss\nwithout prejudice, a District Court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under\nRule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as\na result.\u201d Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1279\u201380 (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks and citations\nomitted). \u201cLegal prejudice\u201d is a \u201cterm of art,\u201d meaning \u201cprejudice to some legal interest,\nsome legal claim, [or] some legal argument.\u201d Id. at 1280 (internal quotation marks\nomitted). Legal prejudice is not \u201cuncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved,\u201d and\nindeed, \u201cthe threat of future litigation which causes uncertainty is insufficient to establish\nplain legal prejudice[.]\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cAdditionally,\nthe mere inconvenience of defending another lawsuit does not constitute plain legal\nprejudice, . . . and plain legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will\nbe inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a\n\n\n5\n    The \u201cSecond Claimant\u201d refers to 2040 Energy. See Ex. G to MVD, Dkt. # 253-9 at 3.\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                           Civil Minutes \u2013 General                         Page 6 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E         Document 285 Filed 05/28/26                 Page 7 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12360\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                 CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                                   Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:     Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\ntactical advantage by that dismissal[.]\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);\nsee also Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996).\n\nIV.      Discussion\n\n         A.     Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (\u201cMVD\u201d) (Dkt. # 253) 6\n\n       In compliance with the UK Court\u2019s Order, Plaintiff now moves to voluntarily\ndismiss this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Before turning to the merits of the motion, the\nCourt first addresses Defendants\u2019 Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. # 276), attached to their\nOpposition.\n\n                i.     Defendants\u2019 RJN (Dkt. # 276-4)\n\n       Attached to their Opposition to Plaintiff\u2019s MVD, Defendants request that the Court\njudicially notice: (1) several court filings in the UK Litigation, found in Exhibits B through\nF accompanying their MJOP, Dkts. # 263-5\u2013263-9; and (2) two of Mr. Klippsten\u2019s posts\non the social media platform \u201cX\u201d (formerly known as \u201cTwitter\u201d). See Dkt. # 276-4 (\u201cDefs.\u2019\nRJN\u201d) at 3\u20137. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants\u2019 requests. See Pl.\u2019s Reply to MVD.\n\n        Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) provides that \u201c[t]he court may judicially notice a\nfact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily\ndetermined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.\u201d Fed. R. Evid.\n201(b)(2). Regarding Defendants\u2019 first request, Defendants ask the Court to judicially\nnotice certain UK Court documents, such as the UK Claimants\u2019 Amended Particulars of\nClaim, and various UK Court Orders. See Defs.\u2019 RJN at 2\u20133. It is well-established that\nthe Court \u201cmay take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the\nfederal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.\u201d U.S.\nex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.\n1992); e.g., Color Switch LLC v. Fortafay Games DMCC, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1089 n.6\n6\n Though the Court set January 30, 2026 as the last date to hear motions in this case, see Dkt. # 119\nat 3, and that deadline has long passed, the Court exercises its discretion to hear Plaintiff\u2019s motion.\nSee, e.g., Thacker v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00255-KJM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3206202, at *1\n(E.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (entertaining Rule 41(a)(2) motion to voluntarily dismiss case even after\n\u201cdispositive motion deadline\u201d had passed), F. & R. adopted, 2021 WL 4168533 (E.D. Cal. Sept.\n14, 2021).\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                           Civil Minutes \u2013 General                            Page 7 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26           Page 8 of 17 Page ID\n                                       #:12361\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                               CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                            Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n(E.D. Cal. 2019) (judicially noticing \u201cforeign court documents\u201d before the Court of Dubai);\nTahaya Misr Inv., Inc. v. Helwan Cement S.A.E., No. 2:16-cv-01001-CAS(AFMx), 2016\nWL 4072332, at *1 n.3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2016) (taking judicial notice of \u201cvarious\npleadings and court orders filed in the Egyptian Action\u201d because \u201cforeign court documents\nare properly the subject of judicial notice\u201d). The Court GRANTS Defendants\u2019 request for\njudicial notice of the filings and Orders coming from the UK Litigation.\n\n        As to the second request, Defendants ask the Court to judicially notice two (2) of\nCory Klippsten\u2019s \u201cX\u201d (formerly known as \u201cTwitter\u201d) posts from November 2025. See Exs.\n1 & 2 to Opp\u2019n to MVD, Dkts. # 276-2 & 276-3. Though normally, Defendants are correct\nthat courts usually take judicial notice of \u201cpublicly accessible webpages\u201d such as \u201cX\u201d social\nmedia posts, see, e.g., Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 857, 869 (N.D. Cal. 2022);\nNapear v. Bonneville Int\u2019l Corp., 669 F. Supp. 3d 948, 959 (E.D. Cal. 2023), \u201ceven if\nmatters sought to be proved are not subject to reasonable dispute, judicial notice of those\nmatters is not appropriate if those matters are not relevant to the issues in the case.\u201d Umeda\nv. Tesla Inc., No. 20-cv-02926-SVK, 2020 WL 5653496, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2020)\n(citation omitted). In other words, the Court finds that \u201cit is not necessary for the Court to\nconsider either document in determining the outcome of this Motion.\u201d Otano v. Ocean,\nNo. CV 13-01605 RSWL (JJCx), 2013 WL 2370724, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2013). As\nsuch, the Court DENIES Defendants\u2019 request for judicial notice of Klippsten\u2019s \u201cX\u201d posts.\n\n                ii.   Merits of MVD\n\n        In compliance with the UK Court\u2019s Order requiring Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss\nthis action without prejudice, Plaintiff moves to dismiss this case under Rule 41(a)(2). In\ndoing so, Plaintiff insists that Defendants will not suffer any legal prejudice from a\ndismissal without prejudice, and maintains that Defendants\u2019 request for legal fees does not\namount to prejudice. See MVD at 23. Plaintiff further maintains Defendants will not suffer\nlegal prejudice because \u201cSwan is not seeking to avoid a \u2018near-certain\u2019 adverse ruling,\u201d is\n\u201cnot improperly trying to avoid discovery,\u201d \u201c[d]ismissal will not lead to inconsistent\nrulings, and Swan has not been dilatory in seeking voluntary dismissal[.]\u201d Id. at 24.\nAccordingly, Plaintiff asks that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice and not award\nDefendants costs or attorneys\u2019 fees. See id. at 26. Defendants oppose at every turn and\nrequest for dismissal with prejudice. See Opp\u2019n to MVD. The Court addresses each of\nDefendants\u2019 arguments in turn.\n\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                      Page 8 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26          Page 9 of 17 Page ID\n                                       #:12362\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                               CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\nCase No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                          Date: May 28, 2026\nTitle:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n                             a.      \u201cNear-Certain\u201d Adverse Ruling\n\n        Defendants represent that they \u201cwill suffer legal prejudice on the ground that Swan\nfiled this motion to avoid near-certain adverse ruling on Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(c) Motion.\u201d\nOpp\u2019n to MVD at 19. Defendants briefly raise five (5) arguments in support of this\nassertion. First, Defendants complain that previously, Swan \u201cadmitted\u201d that the \u201cBusiness\nAssets\u201d at issue in the UK Litigation encompassed \u201call of the Alleged Trade Secrets or\nConfidential Information at issue here,\u201d but now, Defendants posit that Plaintiff has\nchanged course. See id. Relatedly, Defendants disagree with Plaintiff\u2019s understanding that\nthe September 2025 UK Order \u201cdoes not preclude or estop its claims here because DTSA\nand California law differ from English law.\u201d Id. at 20. From Defendants\u2019 view, neither\nstate nor federal law \u201cgoverns the ownership question differently\u201d and the UK Litigation\ndisposed of the ownership question. See id. To this point, Defendants third put forth that\nPlaintiff\u2019s contract claims are not broader than its trade secret claims, and thus do not\n\u201csurvive the UK Court Order[.]\u201d Id. Fourth, Defendants dispute Plaintiff\u2019s interpretation\nof the September 2025 UK Court Order, and instead, believe that the Order\u2019s language\nregarding dismissal without prejudice \u201cpreserves only claims that are not inconsistent with\nthe Undertakings.\u201d Id. at 21. Thus, Defendants insist \u201c[t]his does not permit survival of\nany existing claims relating to the Business Assets or any other claims concerning control\nor ownership of the Business Assets.\u201d Id. (emphasis in original). Finally, Defendants\nproffer that \u201cthe filing circumstances of Swan\u2019s [MVD] itself underscore that it knows the\nRule 12(c) Motion is likely to be granted\u201d because Plaintiff knew Defendants intended on\nfiling their Sanctions Motion and MJOP and thus preemptively filed its MVD. Id. None\nof Defendants arguments have merit, and indeed, none of Defendants arguments address\neither legal prejudice or the existence of a \u201cnear-certain\u201d adverse ruling.\n\n        \u201cA district court may consider whether the plaintiff is requesting a voluntary\ndismissal only to avoid a near-certain adverse ruling.\u201d Maxum Indem. Ins. Co. v. A-1 All\nAm. Roofing Co., 299 F. App\u2019x 664, 666 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Terrovona v. Kincheloe,\n852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988)). For instance, in Terrovona, the Ninth Circuit affirmed\nthe district court\u2019s denial of Plaintiff\u2019s motion to voluntarily dismiss the case without\nprejudice. 852 F.2d at 430. There, the plaintiff \u201cfiled his Rule 41 motion three months\nafter the motion for summary judgment had been filed\u201d and the magistrate judge had issued\na Report and Recommendation, recommending disposition on the pending summary\njudgment motion. Id. (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit held that in light of the timing\nof the motions (i.e., dispositive motion filed before Rule 41(a)(2) motion), and because the\n\n\nCV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 9 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 10 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12363\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                            Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n magistrate judge had recommended disposition of the dispositive motion, the district court\n did not abuse its discretion by refusing to dismiss the action under Rule 41. See id.\n\n          Similarly, in Maxum Indemnity Insurance Company, the Ninth Circuit upheld the\n district court\u2019s decision to deny the plaintiff\u2019s Rule 41(a)(2) motion to voluntarily dismiss\n a third-party claim without prejudice. 299 F. App\u2019x at 665\u201366. Instead, the district court\n granted the third-party\u2019s motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim. See id. at\n 665. Because \u201cthe district court had indicated to both parties how it planned to rule on\n [plaintiff\u2019s] claim against\u201d the third-party, the Court found that plaintiff filed its Rule 41\n motion \u201conly to avoid a near-certain adverse ruling.\u201d Id. at 666.\n\n        Thus, taking Maxum Indemnity and Terrovona together, the Court must assess both\n (1) the timing of the Rule 41 motion in relation to the MJOP; and (2) whether there was\n any likelihood or prior indicia that the Court would grant Defendants\u2019 MJOP prior to\n assessing Plaintiff\u2019s MVD. See Terrovona, 852 F.2d at 430; Maxum Indem. Ins. Co., 299\n F. App\u2019x at 665\u201366; see also Hepp v. Conoco, Inc., 97 F. App\u2019x 124, 125 (9th Cir. 2004)\n (\u201cBecause there is nothing in the record establishing that Conoco was entitled to have either\n [its motion in limine or its motion for summary judgment] granted in its favor, the district\n court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Hepps\u2019 motion for voluntary dismissal.\u201d);\n contra Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Mgmt. LLC, No. 2:23-CV-10376-MRA-RAO, 2025\n WL 1288960, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025) (\u201cPlaintiff admits that it seeks to avoid an\n adverse ruling on Defendants\u2019 MJOP, expressly stating that \u2018the proper course is not to\n adjudicate the merits through a Rule 12(c) motion, but rather to dismiss the action without\n prejudice\u2019 . . . The timing of Plaintiff\u2019s MVD\u2014approximately five months after the Court\n issued its PI Order and a month after Defendants\u2019 MJOP\u2014is telling.\u201d) (emphasis in\n original); Coupa Software Inc. v. DCR Workforce, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03102-EMC, 2023\n WL 6247252, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023) (finding plaintiff moved to dismiss case to\n avoid near-certain adverse ruling because by the time plaintiff filed its motion for voluntary\n dismissal the Court had \u201cindicated that it would be denying\u201d plaintiff\u2019s motion for\n preliminary injunction and defendant had filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings).\n\n         Defendants\u2019 arguments thus fail for several reasons. First, there can be no dispute\n that Plaintiff filed its MVD before Defendants filed their MJOP. Indeed, Plaintiff filed the\n instant motion on April 21, 2026, Dkt. # 253, while Defendants filed their MJOP three days\n later, on April 24, 2026, Dkt. # 263. Defendants suggest that Plaintiff only filed the\n pending MVD because it knew Defendants were planning on filing their Sanctions Motion\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 10 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 11 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12364\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                           Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n and MJOP. Opp\u2019n to MVD at 21. But this is of little import. The Court is tasked with\n assessing whether Plaintiff knew, with \u201cnear certainty,\u201d that the Court would grant\n Defendants\u2019 MJOP prior to filing its MVD. The record simply cannot establish that fact.\n Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendants\u2019 contention that Plaintiff failed to meet and\n confer prior to filing its MVD. Id. Plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Motion represents that the motion\n \u201cis made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on\n April 14, 2026.\u201d Dkt. # 253 at 2. And Plaintiff has offered the Declaration of Stacylyn M.\n Doore representing the same. See Decl. of Stacylyn M. Doore ISO Pl.\u2019s Opp\u2019n to Mot. for\n Sanctions, Dkt. # 274 (\u201cDoore Decl.\u201d) \u00b6 10. Defendant has not proffered any\n countervailing evidence to indicate that this conference did not occur. In any event, that\n Plaintiff filed its MVD at 3:43 a.m. P.T. is simply not relevant. Opp\u2019n to MVD at 8. The\n record indisputably reflects that Plaintiff filed its MVD before Defendants filed their\n MJOP.\n\n         Further, Defendants\u2019 position that the September 2025 UK Court Order \u201cpreclude[s]\n or estop[s]\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s DTSA and contract claims is simply duplicative of its MJOP.\n Compare Opp\u2019n to MVD at 20, with MJOP at 18\u201331. Defendants needed to demonstrate\n that the Court\u2014either in a previous ruling, a tentative Order, an oral decision, a magistrate\n judge\u2019s Report and Recommendation, etc.\u2014had previously indicated to the parties (and\n more importantly, to Plaintiff) that it would very likely rule in Defendants\u2019 favor in\n resolving the MJOP. Defendants filed their MJOP in light of the UK Court\u2019s decision, and\n thus the MJOP principally argues that Plaintiff\u2019s claims are judicially estopped and that\n issue preclusion requires dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s claims. See MJOP at 18\u201331. Thus far,\n none of the Court\u2019s prior decisions have provided any indication as to how it would rule\n on Defendants\u2019 MJOP. Even the Court\u2019s previous Order substantially denying Defendants\u2019\n Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 164) did not have an opportunity to weigh in on such arguments,\n particularly because the Court issued its April 2025 Order before the UK Court\u2019s\n September 2025 decision.\n\n         Accordingly, because Plaintiff filed its MVD three days before Defendants filed\n their MJOP and because there is no evidence or indicia in the record to suggest that the\n Court had indicated how it would rule on Defendants\u2019 MJOP\u2014let alone that it was \u201cnear\n certain\u201d that it would rule in Defendants\u2019 favor\u2014the Court cannot find legal prejudice\n exists on this basis to dismiss the case with prejudice.\n\n\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 11 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 12 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12365\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                            Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n                              b.      Prevailing Party Status\n\n        Next, Defendants suggest that they would suffer legal prejudice if the Court\n dismisses the action without prejudice because they would not be able to recover \u201cfees and\n costs as a prevailing party on Swan\u2019s claims.\u201d Opp\u2019n to MVD at 23. In bringing this\n argument, Defendants principally rely on the Ninth Circuit\u2019s unpublished decision in\n United States v. Ito, 472 F. App\u2019x 841 (9th Cir. 2012). Id. There, in a brief, three-paragraph\n memorandum disposition, the Court vacated the district court\u2019s dismissal without prejudice\n after the district court failed to \u201crecognize that dismissal without prejudice precludes\n prevailing party status,\u201d and therefore prevented the prevailing parties from bringing \u201ctheir\n attorney\u2019s fees motion under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act[.]\u201d Id. at 842.\n Defendants posit that in light of Swan\u2019s admission in the UK Litigation that it does not\n own the Business Assets, \u201cDefendants are necessarily the prevailing parties on Swan\u2019s\n claims and entitled to reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees under the Individual Defendants\u2019\n Consulting Agreements and/or under the DTSA.\u201d Opp\u2019n to MVD at 23\u201324.\n\n         The attorneys\u2019 fees provision of the DTSA provides that \u201ca court may, . . . if a claim\n of [trade secret] misappropriation is made in bad faith, which may be established by\n circumstantial evidence, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or opposed in bad\n faith, or the trade secret was willfully and maliciously appropriated, award reasonable\n attorney\u2019s fees to the prevailing party.\u201d 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(3)(D); Physician\u2019s Surrogacy,\n Inc v. German, 311 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1195\u201396 (S.D. Cal. 2018). \u201cPrevailing party status\n requires that a party received a judgment on the merits, or obtained a court-ordered consent\n decree.\u201d Physician\u2019s Surrogacy, 311 F. Supp. 3d at 1196 (quoting Buckhannon Bd. & Care\n Home v. W. Va. Dep\u2019t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). \u201cIn addition,\n such relief must create the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties\n necessary to permit an award of attorney\u2019s fees.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). Meanwhile, upon\n review of the Individual Defendants\u2019 Consulting Agreements, they agreements provide that\n a prevailing party seeking to enforce or interpret provisions of the agreement is entitled to\n \u201creasonable attorneys\u2019 fees.\u201d See, e.g., Dkt. # 25-5 at 71.\n\n         Thus, Defendants\u2019 arguments fail for three reasons. First, the September 2025 UK\n Court Order does not find that Plaintiff brought its misappropriation claim in bad faith, nor\n have Defendants directed the Court to any stipulation or document noting as so. See 18\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(3)(D). Even so, Defendants have not prevailed in this case; indeed,\n Plaintiff does not stipulate that resolution of the \u201cBusiness Assets\u201d in the UK Litigation\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 12 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 13 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12366\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                           Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n resolves all outstanding trade secret claims in this case. See, e.g., Reply ISO MVD at 7\u20138.\n In any event, the Court has not issued a judgment on the merits in favor of Defendant, nor\n have Defendants obtained \u201ca court-ordered consent decree\u201d in this case, where the DTSA\n applies. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(3)(D); Physician\u2019s Surrogacy, 311 F. Supp. 3d at 1196. For\n the same reason, the Court cannot find that Defendants are the prevailing party in this case\n under the Consulting Agreements, as they have not prevailed in defending the enforcement\n or interpretation of the agreements. If Defendants believe that in light of the September\n 2025 UK Court Order that they are prevailing parties, they may seek attorneys\u2019 fees in that\n forum. Finally, the Ninth Circuit has stated in no uncertain terms that \u201cthe expense incurred\n in defending against a lawsuit does not amount to legal prejudice.\u201d Westlands Water Dist.\n v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996); Meridian Rapid Def. Grp. LLC v. Delta\n Sci. Corp., No. CV 23-7222-GW-PDx, 2025 WL 504487, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2025).\n \u201cSimply put, Defendants\u2019 attorneys\u2019-fees claims are far too speculative to amount to legal\n prejudice.\u201d Segal v. Segel, No. 20-cv-1382-BAS-JLB, 2022 WL 848324, at *4 (S.D. Cal.\n Mar. 22, 2022). Accordingly, here too, the Court does not find that a dismissal without\n prejudice will amount to legal prejudice on Defendants. The Court moves to Defendants\u2019\n remaining arguments.\n                              c.     Remaining Arguments\n\n         Defendants also request dismissal with prejudice because, in their view, Plaintiff\n lacked diligence and delayed in dismissing the case when it \u201cdid or should have known\n that it did not own the Alleged Trade Secrets and Confidential Information when it filed\n this lawsuit in September 2024\u201d because the SHA \u201cmade clear that the Business Assets\n belonged to 2040 Energy,\u201d not Swan. Opp\u2019n to MVD at 24. Defendants also take issue\n with Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cdecision to concede the ownership issue and abandon its direct claims\n arising from the Business Assets\u201d when they stipulated to this fact in the UK Litigation.\n See id. at 25\u201326.\n\n        To begin, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Ninth Circuit has outright\n \u201crejected\u201d the argument that a plaintiff\u2019s \u201cexcessive delay and lack of diligence\u201d amounts\n to legal prejudice. See Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1282. Indeed, \u201cDefendants do not explain how\n [undue delay] amounts to legal prejudice, as opposed to inconvenience, and no legal\n prejudice is apparent to the Court.\u201d Segal, 2022 WL 848324, at *3 (emphasis in original).\n In any event, the Court does not find the presence of any delay in either the prosecution of\n this case or in the prompt dismissal of this action. Plaintiff represents that after the\n September 2025 UK Order, it repeatedly met and conferred with Defense counsel to\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 13 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 14 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12367\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                             Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n stipulate to dismissal without prejudice of this action. See, e.g., Reply ISO MVD at 9\u201310.\n Those conferences failed, resulting in this April 2026 motion. Plaintiff \u201ccould have sought\n dismissal sooner than [it] did, but [it] [was] not dilatory.\u201d Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97.\n\n         The same logic applies to Defendants\u2019 contention regarding Plaintiff\u2019s change in\n litigation strategy. That Plaintiff ultimately conceded to the ownership of the Business\n Assets in the UK Litigation does not now amount to legal prejudice to Defendants. Cf.\n Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1280 (\u201cLegal prejudice . . . means prejudice to some legal interest, some\n legal claim, some legal argument.\u201d). Defendants have failed to demonstrate legal\n prejudice, and indeed, Defendants\u2019 authority is inapposite. See Opp\u2019n to MVD at 26. For\n instance, Defendants rely on Gonzalez v. FCA US LLC, No. EDCV 24-2239-KK-DTB,\n 2025 WL 1928087, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2025) to support their contention that\n Plaintiff\u2019s concession amounts to prejudice. But in Gonzalez, the court found dismissal\n with prejudice was warranted because Plaintiff \u201cabandoned his claims\u201d by failing to either\n appear for his deposition or oppose Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, and for his\n \u201ccontinued lack of responsiveness to his counsel.\u201d See id. None of that is present here,\n and indeed, Plaintiff does not understand its concession to the Business Assets as an\n outright abandonment of its claims. The Court fails to find legal prejudice exists on this\n basis either.\n\n                 iii.   Attorneys\u2019 Fees & Costs\n\n         Finally, Defendants request that if the Court does grant Plaintiff\u2019s MVD that the\n Court award \u201creasonable fees and costs.\u201d Opp\u2019n to MVD at 26. In support of their request,\n Defendants proffer that \u201cSwan\u2019s case lacks merit,\u201d that it faces a risk of future litigation\n expense\u2014e.g., \u201cSwan\u2019s pursuit and threats of counterclaims in the UK, derivative litigation\n in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), and multiple arbitration proceedings\u201d\u2014that Defendants\n have undertaken extensive efforts to defend against \u201cbaseless\u201d claims, that Plaintiff was\n not diligent, in part, because it waited \u201c18 months after first filing this litigation\u201d before\n seeking dismissal, and finally, that Plaintiff litigated in bad faith. See id. at 26\u201331. The\n Court denies this request.\n\n         The Court may \u201caward costs and attorney\u2019s fees as a condition of dismissal without\n prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2).\u201d Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1286. \u201cImposition of costs and fees as\n a condition for dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory, however, [ ], and a defendant\n is entitled only to recover, as a condition of dismissal, attorney\u2019s fees or costs for work that\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                       Page 14 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E            Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 15 of 17 Page ID\n                                            #:12368\n                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                    CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                             Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:        Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n is not useful in continuing litigation between the parties[.]\u201d Id. (cleaned up) (internal\n quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent that Defendants are correct that\n Plaintiff intends to pursue counterclaims in the UK, derivative litigation in the BVI, and\n \u201cmultiple arbitration proceedings\u201d in other forums, then this suggests that all of\n Defendants\u2019 work here, including all of the discovery proceedings that occurred here, will\n prove useful in future litigation between the parties. See Opp\u2019n to MVD at 28; Kamal, 88\n F.4th at 1286. That would significantly weigh against awarding fees or costs. See Kamal,\n 88 F.4th at 1286. Even so, the Court is not convinced by any of Defendants\u2019 other\n arguments. The Court does not find any indicia of bad faith on Plaintiff\u2019s part, nor does\n the Court find that Plaintiff\u2019s claims are \u201cbaseless\u201d or that Plaintiff was not diligent in\n prosecuting this case. If anything, the Courts Orders, including those by the Magistrate\n Judge, have indicated the opposite. The Court denies Defendants\u2019 request for attorneys\u2019\n fees and costs.\n\n         Taken together, the Court finds that Defendants will suffer no legal prejudice\n resulting from the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Finding no risk of legal\n prejudice to Defendants, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal\n Without Prejudice (Dkt. # 253) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.\n Defendants\u2019 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. # 263) is DENIED AS MOOT.\n\n          B.       Defendants\u2019 Sanctions Motion (Dkt. # 257)\n\n         Finally, the Court addresses Defendants\u2019 Sanctions Motion. Dkt. # 257. Defendants\n insist that Plaintiff has violated Rule 11 by bringing \u201cfrivolous claims predicated on false\n ownership to harass and annoy Defendants . . . all while knowing that none of the Alleged\n Trade Secrets or confidential information alleged in this action belonged to it.\u201d Mot. for\n Sanctions at 22. The Court finds several flaws fatal to Defendants\u2019 motion.\n\n        First, Defendants\u2019 motion is simply untimely. The Court\u2019s Civil Trial Order set\n January 30, 2026 as the last date to hear motions. See Dkt. # 119 at 3. Though this case\n was previously stayed, Defendants never requested to lift the stay and impose a new,\n amended Civil Trial Order after dismissing their appeal on November 12, 2025. Dkt.\n # 251. After the dismissal of their appeal, Defendants could have sought a new Civil Trial\n Order with an extended motions deadline. But they never did. In any event, to hear this\n sanctions motion, the Court would first need to modify the Scheduling Order to extend the\n deadline to hear motions. See, e.g., Shakey\u2019s Pizza Asia Ventures, Inc. v. PCJV USA, LLC,\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                             Civil Minutes \u2013 General                 Page 15 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E        Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 16 of 17 Page ID\n                                        #:12369\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                            Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:    Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n No. 2:24-cv-04546-SB-AGR, 2025 WL 2427837, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2025). Yet\n Defendants have failed to demonstrate that any good cause exists to do so and the Court\n declines to do so on its own.\n\n        Similarly, a Rule 11 motion \u201cshould be served promptly after the inappropriate\n paper is filed, and, if delayed too long, may be viewed as untimely.\u201d Holgate v. Baldwin,\n 425 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendants aver that \u201c[f]rom the beginning, the heart\n of Swan\u2019s claims hinged on its purported ownership of the \u2018Business Assets,\u2019\u201d and that\n \u201cDefendants flagged this ownership issue at the outset, at the TRO stage and many times\n thereafter,\u201d yet Plaintiff \u201creiterated the same false premise in multiple briefs and open\n court.\u201d Mot. for Sanctions at 24. If Defendants credibly believed that Plaintiff\u2019s allegations\n were in violation of Rule 11 from the inception of this case in September 2024, then they\n should have \u201cpromptly\u201d served a motion for sanctions long ago instead of waiting over a\n year and a half before doing so. By the same token, the instant motion is also untimely.\n Holgate, 425 F.3d at 679.\n\n         Finally, even if the Court did exercise its discretion to entertain the merits of the\n motion for sanctions, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that in light of dismissing this case\n without prejudice, the motion is procedurally barred. See Opp\u2019n to Mot. for Sanctions at\n 22. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) prescribes that a motion for sanctions \u201cmust\n not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention,\n or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within\n another time the court sets.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s counsel represents that \u201cstarting in September\n 2025, [she] repeatedly sought to obtain Defendants\u2019 agreement to stipulate to dismissal of\n all claims in this action without prejudice.\u201d Doore Decl. \u00b6 5. The parties continued to\n confer on a stipulation for dismissal even during this motion\u2019s pre-filing conference\n pursuant to C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-3. See id. \u00b6 9. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff\n repeatedly attempted to \u201cwithdraw\u201d this action both before and after Defendants served\n Plaintiff with their Sanctions Motion. See Westerkamp v. Mueller, No. CV-21-02088-\n PHX-DWL, 2023 WL 3792739, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 2, 2023) (\u201cWhen made during a Rule\n 11 safe harbor period, a motion to voluntarily dismiss a case is tantamount to a withdrawal\n of the operative complaint because withdrawal must be permitted.\u201d). As such, Rule\n 11(c)(2)\u2019s safe-harbor provision bars entertaining the instant Sanctions Motion any further.\n Defendants\u2019 Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. # 257) is DENIED.\n\n\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                         Civil Minutes \u2013 General                     Page 16 of 17\n\fCase 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E         Document 285 Filed 05/28/26 Page 17 of 17 Page ID\n                                         #:12370\n                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                 CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL\n\n Case No. 2:24-cv-08280-MWC-E                                                 Date: May 28, 2026\n Title:     Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD., et al.\n\n\n V.       Conclusion\n\n          For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:\n\n                 1.     Defendants\u2019 Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. # 276-4) is\n                        GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.\n\n                 2.     Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Case (Dkt. # 253)\n                        is GRANTED. Defendant\u2019s Motion for Judgment on the\n                        Pleadings (Dkt. # 257) is DENIED AS MOOT.\n\n                 3.     Defendants\u2019 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED.\n\n                 4.     The May 29, 2026 hearing is VACATED.\n\n                 5.     This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE [JS-6].\n\n\n          IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\n                                                                                               :\n                                                                  Initials of Preparer   TJ\n\n\n\n\n CV-90 (03/15)                          Civil Minutes \u2013 General                          Page 17 of 17\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-03T13:14:04.408103-07:00","document_number":"285","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047895373","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-28T12:06:57.575440-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.687777-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":"11:42:19","entry_number":285,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":820,"description":"(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (DKT. 276 -4), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE CASE (DKT. 253 ), DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS (DKT. 257 ), DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DKT. 263 ), AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Michelle Williams Court. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. # 276-4) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Case (Dkt. # 253) is GRANTED. Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. # 257) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED. The May 29, 2026 hearing is VACATED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (yl) (Entered: 05/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465201213/","id":465201213,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480399102/","id":480399102,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-26T12:04:53.347893-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T12:04:53.354575-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document Under Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T12:04:53.333412-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T12:04:53.333426-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-26","time_filed":"11:39:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465193934/","id":465193934,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480391583/","id":480391583,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/283/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-26T11:31:43.958616-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.567747-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"283","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047867965","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T11:31:43.922075-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.535333-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-26","time_filed":"11:19:32","entry_number":283,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":813,"description":"(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' APPLICATIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (DKTS. 254, 258, 264, 270, 277 ) by Judge Michelle Williams Court. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the parties' pending Applications to Seal. [SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (yl) (Entered: 05/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464301037/","id":464301037,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469888/","id":479469888,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/280/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:46.890850-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.306631-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"280","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798924","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:46.862633-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.271165-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"23:09:43","entry_number":280,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.002","pacer_sequence_number":804,"description":"REPLY reply in support of a motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) 263 Defendant Proton Management Ltd.s Reply in Support of Its Joinder of Individual Defendants Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings (Dkt. 263) filed by Defendant Proton Management LTD.. (Trigg, Adam) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464301026/","id":464301026,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469877/","id":479469877,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/281/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:46.036159-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.378819-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"281","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798958","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:46.012740-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.349983-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"23:19:49","entry_number":281,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.003","pacer_sequence_number":807,"description":"REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions 257 filed by Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Michael Alexander Holmes, Ilios Corp., Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, Lucas Vasconcelos. (Fondo, Grant) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464301002/","id":464301002,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469853/","id":479469853,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/282/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:44.604155-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.506118-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"282","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798963","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:44.579522-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.461304-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"23:23:38","entry_number":282,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.004","pacer_sequence_number":810,"description":"REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) 263 filed by Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Michael Alexander Holmes, Ilios Corp., Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, Lucas Vasconcelos. (Fondo, Grant) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464283245/","id":464283245,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479451618/","id":479451618,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/279/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-15T18:34:54.188815-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.228179-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"279","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047797963","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T18:34:54.154757-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.193938-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"18:11:00","entry_number":279,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":801,"description":"REPLY Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntarily Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) 253 filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463528518/","id":463528518,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478677230/","id":478677230,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/276/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:43.982430-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.022109-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"276","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738730","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Objection/Opposition (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:43.953368-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.978960-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"22:43:06","entry_number":276,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.007","pacer_sequence_number":793,"description":"OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntarily Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) 253 filed by Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Michael Alexander Holmes, Ilios Corp., Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, Lucas Vasconcelos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew P. Kanny, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Request for Judicial Notice, # 5 Proposed Order)(Fondo, Grant) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463528514/","id":463528514,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478677226/","id":478677226,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/277/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:43.230414-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.093987-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"277","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738749","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document Under Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:43.204373-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.065561-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"22:52:30","entry_number":277,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.008","pacer_sequence_number":796,"description":"APPLICATION to file document under seal filed by Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Michael Alexander Holmes, Ilios Corp., Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, Lucas Vasconcelos. (Attachments: # 1 [Redacted] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Russo, Amanda) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463528511/","id":463528511,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478677223/","id":478677223,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/278/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:42.903817-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.149216-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"278","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738758","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T23:03:42.876759-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:08:00.123655-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"22:59:13","entry_number":278,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.009","pacer_sequence_number":798,"description":"SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document under seal 277 filed by Defendants Thomas Patrick Furlong, Michael Alexander Holmes, Ilios Corp., Rafael Dias Monteleone, Santhiran Naidoo, Enrique Romualdez, Lucas Vasconcelos. (Attachments: # 1 [Unredacted] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal)(Russo, Amanda) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463527908/","id":463527908,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478676620/","id":478676620,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/274/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T22:32:52.334044-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.879842-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"274","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738637","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T22:32:52.308340-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.842325-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"22:03:03","entry_number":274,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.005","pacer_sequence_number":782,"description":"DECLARATION of Stacylyn M. Doore re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 273, Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 272 filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Exhibit to Declaration of Stacylyn M. Doore, # 2 Exhibit B-Exhibit to Declaration of Stacylyn M. Doore, # 3 Exhibit C-Exhibit to Declaration of Stacylyn M. Doore)(Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463527903/","id":463527903,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478676615/","id":478676615,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/275/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T22:32:51.551204-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.947343-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"275","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738661","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Proof of Service (subsequent documents)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T22:32:51.525439-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.913273-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"22:10:28","entry_number":275,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.006","pacer_sequence_number":786,"description":"PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc., re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 272, Declaration, 274, Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 273, APPLICATION to file document under seal 270, Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration, 271 served on 5/8/2026. (Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463526278/","id":463526278,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478674760/","id":478674760,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/271/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:11.878551-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.670218-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"271","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738536","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:11.851037-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.636020-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"21:30:45","entry_number":271,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.002","pacer_sequence_number":773,"description":"SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document under seal 270 filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Unredacted Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, # 2 Exhibit 2-Unredacted Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)(Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463526271/","id":463526271,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478674753/","id":478674753,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/272/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:10.796165-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.740408-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"272","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738563","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Objection/Opposition (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:10.770248-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.711989-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"21:39:58","entry_number":272,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.003","pacer_sequence_number":776,"description":"OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions 257 filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463526258/","id":463526258,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478674740/","id":478674740,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/273/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:08.696280-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.809624-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"273","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738627","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Objection/Opposition (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T22:06:08.668225-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.777021-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"21:50:46","entry_number":273,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.004","pacer_sequence_number":779,"description":"OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) 263 filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463519381/","id":463519381,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478667845/","id":478667845,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/270/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-08T21:35:17.046384-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.586257-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"270","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047738461","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document Under Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T21:35:17.016624-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.550650-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"21:17:20","entry_number":270,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":771,"description":"APPLICATION to file document under seal filed by Plaintiff Electric Solidus, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Redacted Opposition to Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, # 2 Exhibit 2-Redacted Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, # 3 Proposed Order)(Doore, Stacylyn) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462751896/","id":462751896,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69197367/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477874487/","id":477874487,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69197367/269/electric-solidus-inc-v-proton-management-ltd/","date_created":"2026-05-01T19:34:32.219364-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.457712-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"269","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047675150","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Joinder (Motion Related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-01T19:34:32.191887-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T08:07:59.423271-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-01","time_filed":"19:27:53","entry_number":269,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":768,"description":"JOINDER in NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) 263 Defendant Proton Management Ltd.s Joinder of Individual Defendants Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings (Dkt. 263) filed by Defendant Proton Management LTD.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Proton Management Ltd.s Joinder of Individual Defendants Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings (Dkt. 263))(Trigg, Adam) (Entered: 05/01/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69197367&page_size=40"}