{"cached_at":"2026-09-02T09:52:58.195361+00:00","cl_docket_id":"67123909","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","id":67123909,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nvd/","court_id":"nvd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9835537/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/338/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9406/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2023-04-03T08:17:11.373068-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T10:24:51.798840-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Richard F. Boulware II","referred_to_str":"Daniel J. Albregts","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:33:04.767942-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-03-30","date_terminated":"2026-03-31","date_last_filing":"2026-07-10","case_name_short":"Moreno","case_name":"Moreno v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc","docket_number":"2:23-cv-00470","docket_number_core":"2300470","docket_number_raw":"2:23-cv-00470","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"RFB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"DJA","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"161530","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Both","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":"2023-04-03T08:17:11.370702-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14576122/","id":14576122,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361332/","attorney_id":11361332,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361332/","attorney_id":11361332,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345023/","attorney_id":8345023,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345023/","attorney_id":8345023,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361336/","attorney_id":11361336,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.042906-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.042914-07:00","name":"Jacks Way LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14576121/","id":14576121,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361336/","attorney_id":11361336,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.024050-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.024058-07:00","name":"Mary Barida","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14576120/","id":14576120,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361331/","attorney_id":11361331,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361332/","attorney_id":11361332,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361332/","attorney_id":11361332,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037839/","attorney_id":10037839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361333/","attorney_id":11361333,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361334/","attorney_id":11361334,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361335/","attorney_id":11361335,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361336/","attorney_id":11361336,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.004887-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-13T01:31:34.004895-07:00","name":"Todd Langer","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14576119/","id":14576119,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805719/","attorney_id":9805719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":"2025-04-02","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 04/02/2025","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-13T01:31:33.951511-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-13T01:31:33.951525-07:00","name":"Kevin Clark","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14576118/","id":14576118,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805717/","attorney_id":9805717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805717/","attorney_id":9805717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805717/","attorney_id":9805717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805718/","attorney_id":9805718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2025-04-02","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 04/02/2025","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-09-13T01:31:33.722053-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-13T01:31:33.722062-07:00","name":"James R Lax","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485264/","id":12485264,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805722/","attorney_id":9805722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.988589-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.988603-07:00","name":"Hugh J. Gallagher","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485263/","id":12485263,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805722/","attorney_id":9805722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.979440-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.979454-07:00","name":"Simeon Salzman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485262/","id":12485262,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805722/","attorney_id":9805722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.972669-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.972680-07:00","name":"Frederick G. Thiel","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485261/","id":12485261,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805722/","attorney_id":9805722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.965373-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.965387-07:00","name":"Merrick Okamoto","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485260/","id":12485260,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361337/","attorney_id":11361337,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361338/","attorney_id":11361338,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805720/","attorney_id":9805720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11361339/","attorney_id":11361339,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":"2025-02-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805721/","attorney_id":9805721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9805722/","attorney_id":9805722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.954993-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.955004-07:00","name":"Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12485259/","id":12485259,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345021/","attorney_id":8345021,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345022/","attorney_id":8345022,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345023/","attorney_id":8345023,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8345023/","attorney_id":8345023,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","docket_id":67123909,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2025-04-02","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 04/02/2025","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.486170-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T04:59:59.486185-07:00","name":"Jaime R. Moreno","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470422750/","id":470422750,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485799143/","id":485799143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-10T10:24:51.901940-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T10:24:51.920007-07:00","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":"Notice Attorney Action Required","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-10T10:24:51.884120-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T10:24:51.884141-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-10","time_filed":"09:30:14","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470301380/","id":470301380,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485674139/","id":485674139,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/102/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-09T13:27:27.038642-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T13:27:27.065454-07:00","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":"102","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011577589","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice Other","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T13:27:27.006053-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T13:27:27.017399-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-09","time_filed":"12:26:22","entry_number":102,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":371,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467490011/","id":467490011,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482755352/","id":482755352,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/101/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-15T12:21:16.733748-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T12:21:16.747257-07:00","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":"101","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011534835","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Designation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-15T12:21:16.690262-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T12:21:16.699321-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":"11:28:46","entry_number":101,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":365,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466066995/","id":466066995,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481289851/","id":481289851,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/100/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-02T14:24:09.049688-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-07T17:28:31.555723-07:00","sha1":"f5630b7a0104668e17ecd50573f6310dc2f71d44","page_count":4,"file_size":2037133,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.100.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.100.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 100 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n1\n\n2 FLANGAS LAW GROUP PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &\n KIMBERLY P. STEIN GARRISON LLP\n3 Email: kps@fdlawlv.com ANDREW J. EHRLICH (pro hac vice)\n4 3275 South Jones Boulevard, Suite 105 DANIEL S. SINNREICH (pro hac vice)\n Las Vegas, NV 89146 KEVIN P. MADDEN (pro hac vice)\n5 Telephone: (702) 307-9500 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n New York, NY 10019-6064\n6 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & Telephone: 212.373.3000\n GARRISON LLP aehrlich@paulweiss.com\n7 MATTHEW D. STACHEL (pro hac vice) dsinnreich@paulweiss.com\n 1313 North Market Street, Suite 806 kmadden@paulweiss.com\n8\n Wilmington, DE 19801-0032\n9 Telephone: 302.655.4410\n mstachel@paulweiss.com Attorneys for Defendants\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n15\n\n16\n TODD LANGER, MARY BARIDA, AND Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n17 JACKS WAY LLC, Individually and on Behalf\n of All Others Similarly Situated, MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND BE\n18 REMOVED AS ATTORNEY OF\n Plaintiffs, RECORD AND ORDER\n19\n v.\n20\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.,\n21 MERRICK OKAMOTO, FREDERICK G.\n THIEL, SIMEON SALZMAN, and HUGH J.\n22 GALLAGHER,\n\n23 Defendants.\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 100 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n1 Kimberly P. Stein, of the law firm of Flangas Law Group, attorneys for\n\n2 defendants MARA Holdings, Inc., f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings Inc. (\u201cMarathon\u201d or the\n\n3 \u201cCompany,\u201d) Okamoto, Thiel, Salzman, and Gallagher (\u201cIndividual Defendants\u201d and\n\n4 collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) hereby files this Motion for Andrew J. Ehrlich to Withdraw or be\n\n5 Removed as Attorney of Record as Andrew J. Ehrlich (\u201cMr. Ehrlich\u201d).\n\n6 The basis for this Motion is that Mr. Ehrlich will depart Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,\n\n7 Wharton & Garrison LLP, as of May 31, 2026, and will no longer be associated with this case,\n\n8 Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA. Yet, Defendants continue to be represented by the law firms\n\n9 of Flangas Law Group; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. As such, Mr.\n\n10 Ehrlich no longer needs to receive any further notification in this proceeding.\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 100 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n1 WHEREFORE, Kimberly P. Stein, Esq. requests that this Court enter its order\n\n2 allowing Mr. Ehrlich to withdraw and be removed as attorney of record and remove Mr. Ehrlich\n\n3 from future CM/ECF notices as generated by the United States District Court for the District of\n\n4 Nevada based on his email aehrlich@paulweiss.com.\n\n5 Dated this 29th day of May 2026.\n FLANGAS LAW GROUP\n6\n\n7\n By: /s/ Kimberly P. Stein\n8 KIMBERLY P. STEIN, ESQ.\n9 Nevada Bar No. 8495\n 3275 South Jones Boulevard, Suite 105\n10 Las Vegas, NV 89146\n Attorney for Defendants\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n ORDER\n15\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n16\n DATED: 6/1/2026\n17\n\n18 IT IS SO ORDERED:\n _____________________________\n19 DANIEL____________\n DATED: J. ALBREGTS\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n20\n RICHARD F. BOULWARE\n21\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 100 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n2 I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on the 29th day of May, 2026, that I\n3 electronically filed the above and foregoing document MOTION FOR ANDREW J.\n4 EHRLICH TO WITHDRAW OR BE REMOVED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND\n5 ORDER using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filling to all CM/ECF\n6 registrants.\n7 Dated: May 29, 2026\n8\n /s/Ronnielyn Abrera\n9 An employee of Flangas Law Group\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-05T12:06:06.097071-07:00","document_number":"100","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011514411","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T14:24:08.998968-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-05T12:05:53.806933-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-01","time_filed":"14:08:26","entry_number":100,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":359,"description":" ORDER Granting 99 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Andrew J. Ehrlich terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 6/1/2026. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465719892/","id":465719892,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480930460/","id":480930460,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/99/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-29T16:23:50.247753-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-29T16:23:50.256535-07:00","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":"99","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011510011","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Withdraw as Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T16:23:50.222850-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-29T16:23:50.229574-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-29","time_filed":"15:56:43","entry_number":99,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":357,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463770599/","id":463770599,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478926858/","id":478926858,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.655051-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.661543-07:00","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":"Appeal Case Number Assigned","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.640175-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.640194-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-12","time_filed":"09:23:48","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463770583/","id":463770583,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478926843/","id":478926843,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/98/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.271799-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.278722-07:00","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":"98","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011480217","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Order Time Schedule","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.229362-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T10:24:24.241193-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-12","time_filed":"09:25:56","entry_number":98,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":354,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462522068/","id":462522068,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477639023/","id":477639023,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/96/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-30T10:20:36.281217-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T03:34:32.012647-07:00","sha1":"60669b88a777f0b03ec9f4aa89b8b72f18e0a079","page_count":3,"file_size":154411,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.96.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.96.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 96 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.\n ANDREW R. MUEHLBAUER\n 2 Nevada Bar No. 10161\n 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104\n 3\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89117\n 4 Telephone: (702) 330-4505\n Facsimile: (702) 825-0141\n 5 Email: andrew@mlolegal.com\n 6 POMERANTZ LLP\n Jeremy A. Lieberman (pro hac vice)\n 7\n J. Alexander Hood II (pro hac vice)\n 8 Jonathan D. Park (pro hac vice)\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n 9 New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n10 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n11 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n ahood@pomlaw.com\n12 jpark@pomlaw.com\n\n13 Attorneys for Co-Lead Plaintiffs Todd Langer,\n Mary Barida, and Jacks Way LLC\n14\n\n15 [additional counsel on signature page]\n\n16\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n18 TODD LANGER, MARY BARIDA, AND\n JACKS WAY LLC, Individually and on\n19 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n20 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS TODD LANGER,\n21 MARY BARIDA, AND JACKS WAY\n v. LLC\u2019S NOTICE OF APPEAL\n22 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.,\n MERRICK OKAMOTO, FREDERICK G.\n23 THIEL, SIMEON SALZMAN, and HUGH\n J. GALLAGHER,\n24\n Defendants.\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 96 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:\n\n 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291, Co-Lead Plaintiffs Todd Langer,\n\n 3 Mary Barida, and Jacks Way LLC (together, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) in the above-captioned action, which\n\n 4 was first filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 30, 2023,\n\n 5 appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Minute Order (Dkt.\n\n 6 No. 94), entered March 31, 2026, and the Judgment (Dkt. No. 95), entered April 7, 2026.\n\n 7 The fee for this appeal has been paid.\n\n 8 In compliance with Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth\n\n 9 Circuit Rule 3-2, Plaintiffs submit the attached Representation Statement.\n\n10\n Dated: April 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n11\n MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.\n12\n\n13 /s/ Andrew R. Muehlbauer\n Andrew R. Muehlbauer\n14 Nevada Bar No. 10161\n 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104\n15 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117\n Telephone: (702) 330-4505\n16 Facsimile: (702) 825-0141\n17 Email: andrew@mlolegal.com\n\n18 Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Liaison\n Counsel for the Class\n19\n POMERANTZ LLP\n20\n Jeremy A. Lieberman (pro hac vice)\n21 J. Alexander Hood II (pro hac vice)\n Jonathan D. Park (pro hac vice)\n22 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n23 Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n24\n Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n25 ahood@pomlaw.com\n jpark@pomlaw.com\n26\n THE SCHALL FIRM\n27 Brian Schall (pro hac vice)\n Brian England (pro hac vice)\n28\n Rina Restaino (pro hac vice)\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 96 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n 2 Telephone: 310-301-3335\n Email: brian@schallfirm.com\n 3\n briane@schallfirm.com\n 4 rina@schallfirm.com\n\n 5 Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead\n Counsel for the Class\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T06:57:21.665057-07:00","document_number":"96","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011460540","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice Appeal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-30T10:20:36.260006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-30T10:20:36.265469-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-30","time_filed":"09:20:02","entry_number":96,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":344,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459999829/","id":459999829,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475045190/","id":475045190,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/95/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-07T14:21:58.562191-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T04:03:28.696853-07:00","sha1":"3a99d89b3f76374827594bea3474955c2b5edea3","page_count":1,"file_size":70041,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.95.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.95.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 95 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 1\n\nAO450 (NVD Rev. 2/18) Judgment in a Civil Case\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n\nJaime R. Moreno\n JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE\n Plaintiff,\n v. Case Number: 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\nMarathon Digital Holdings, Inc. et al\n\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and\n the jury has rendered its verdict.\n\n Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried\n or heard and a decision has been rendered.\n\n Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been\n considered and a decision has been rendered.\n\n IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED\nJUDGMENT entered in favor of Defendant's, Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc., Merrick Okamoto, Frederick\nG. Thiel, Simeon Salzman, Hugh J. Gallagher and against Plaintiff, Jacks Way LLC, Mary Barida, Todd\nLanger.\n\n\n\n\n 04/07/2026\n ____________________ DEBRA K. KEMPI\n Date Clerk\n\n\n\n /s/ JG\n Deputy Clerk\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T06:57:26.551367-07:00","document_number":"95","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011421260","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T14:21:58.522748-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-08T23:15:06.786876-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-07","time_filed":"13:44:00","entry_number":95,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":340,"description":"JUDGMENT in favor of Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc., Frederick G. Thiel, Hugh J. Gallagher, Merrick Okamoto, Simeon Salzman against Jacks Way LLC, Mary Barida, Todd Langer. Signed by Clerk of Court Debra K. Kempi on 4/7/2026. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JG) (Entered: 04/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459258381/","id":459258381,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474280976/","id":474280976,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-31T21:30:08.968660-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T21:30:08.987727-07:00","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":"Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages AND Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T21:30:08.934813-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T21:30:08.934831-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"21:16:10","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456922491/","id":456922491,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471894996/","id":471894996,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/93/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-12T09:21:03.221209-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T04:02:22.957524-07:00","sha1":"9cdd488aa76c60cff7efbdea7ba13bcc2c17f615","page_count":43,"file_size":493804,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.93.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530/gov.uscourts.nvd.161530.93.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 43\n\n 1\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA\n\n 3\n\n 4 TODD LANGER, MARY BARIDA, )\n and JACKS WAY, LLC, ) Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n 5 Individually and on )\n Behalf of All Others ) Las Vegas, Nevada\n 6 Similarly Situated, ) Friday, February 13, 2026\n ) 12:31 p.m.\n 7 Plaintiffs, )\n ) MOTION HEARING\n 8 v. )\n ) C E R T I F I E D C O P Y\n 9 MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS,\n INC.; MERRICK OKAMOTO;\n10 FREDERICK G. THIEL; SIMEON\n SALZMAN; and HUGH J.\n11 GALLAGHER,\n\n12 Defendants.\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS\n\n17 THE HONORABLE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II,\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n18\n\n19\n\n20 APPEARANCES: See next page\n\n21\n\n22\n COURT REPORTER: Patricia L. Ganci, RMR, CRR\n23 United States District Court\n 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Room 1334\n24 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101\n\n25 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced\n by computer-aided transcription.\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 43\n\n 2\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 APPEARANCES:\n\n 2 For the Plaintiffs:\n\n 3 ANDREW R. MUEHLBAUER, ESQ.\n MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.\n 4 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89117\n 5 (702) 330-4505\n\n 6 JONATHAN D. PARK, ESQ.\n POMERANTZ, LLP\n 7 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n 8 (212) 661-1100\n\n 9 BRIAN RAY ENGLAND, ESQ.\n AFFELD ENGLAND & JOHNSON, LLP\n10 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460\n Los Angeles, California 90067\n11 (310) 979-8700\n\n12 For the Defendants:\n\n13 GUS FLANGAS, ESQ.\n FLANGAS LAW GROUP\n14 3275 South Jones Boulevard, Suite 105\n Las Vegas, Nevada 89146\n15 (702) 307-9500\n\n16 ANDREW J. EHRLICH, ESQ.\n DANIEL SINNREICH, ESQ.\n17 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP\n 1285 Avenue of the Americas\n18 New York, New York 10019-6064\n (212) 373-3000\n19\n MATTHEW STACHEL, ESQ.\n20 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP\n 1313 North Market Street, Suite 806\n21 Wilmington, Delaware 19801\n (302) 655-4410\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 43\n\n 3\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2026; 12:31 P.M.\n\n 2 --oOo--\n\n 3 P R O C E E D I N G S\n\n 4 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n\n 5 COURTROOM ADMINISTRATOR: Good afternoon. The matter\n\n 6 now before the Court is Moreno versus Marathon Digital Holdings,\n\n 7 Inc., Case Number 2:23-cv-470-RFB-DJA. Counsel, please make\n\n 8 your appearances, beginning with plaintiffs.\n\n 9 MR. PARK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jonathan Park\n\n10 of Pomerantz, LLP for the plaintiffs.\n\n11 MR. MUEHLBAUER: Good morning -- good afternoon, Your\n\n12 Honor. Andrew Muehlbauer on behalf of plaintiffs, local\n\n13 counsel.\n\n14 MR. ENGLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brian\n\n15 England on behalf of the plaintiff.\n\n16 THE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\n17 MR. EHRLICH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrew\n\n18 Ehrlich from Paul Weiss still on behalf of the Marathon parties.\n\n19 MR. SINNREICH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Daniel\n\n20 Sinnreich, also from Paul Weiss, also on behalf of defendants.\n\n21 MR. STACHEL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew\n\n22 Stachel, also Paul Weiss.\n\n23 MR. FLANGAS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Gus Flangas,\n\n24 also on behalf of the defendants.\n\n25 THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. So, Mr. Ehrlich,\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 43\n\n 4\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 why don't you come up to the podium for a moment, please.\n\n 2 So, Mr. Ehrlich, I want to make -- first, I want to say\n\n 3 this. I don't think it's appropriate for me to be considering\n\n 4 all those documents you attached to your motion. I mean, many\n\n 5 of them are barely even referenced by the plaintiffs. So I want\n\n 6 to ask you about your arguments and how they work if I don't\n\n 7 consider any of those documents because I'm not sure how based\n\n 8 upon the allegations in the complaint I wouldn't necessarily\n\n 9 allow it to go forward.\n\n10 Now, these are motions for summary judgment arguments,\n\n11 but why am I considering 20 -- I don't know how many exhibits?\n\n12 I mean, that's, first, I mean -- well, let me just say this.\n\n13 It's a common problem that is really an issue that I don't like\n\n14 to have to deal with at a motion to dismiss. Some of these\n\n15 exhibits, Mr. Ehrlich, should have never been attached to the\n\n16 motion to dismiss. And while I can appreciate your position\n\n17 that the second amended complaint grossly misstates facts, I'm\n\n18 not allowed to consider that here.\n\n19 So why am I considering so many exhibits on a motion to\n\n20 dismiss?\n\n21 MR. EHRLICH: Okay. So, Your Honor, a couple of\n\n22 things. On -- I -- what I'd like to do is two things. First,\n\n23 I'd like to explain -- I hear the Court and I -- I don't sound\n\n24 like I'm going to persuade the Court, but I'd like to explain\n\n25 the relevance and the appropriateness of the exhibits.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 43\n\n 5\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: No, you don't need to. Mr. Ehrlich, that\n\n 2 doesn't matter, right.\n\n 3 MR. EHRLICH: Okay. But, yeah, either way, and I'll\n\n 4 tell you why.\n\n 5 THE COURT: It doesn't matter, right. We are at a\n\n 6 motion to dismiss. They could be completely relevant --\n\n 7 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah.\n\n 8 THE COURT: -- and completely improper, right. Their\n\n 9 relevance is not the issue.\n\n10 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n11 THE COURT: That's not the basis for them to be\n\n12 admitted --\n\n13 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n14 THE COURT: -- or to even be considered, right.\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Well, I think they're -- they fall in\n\n16 different categories, Your Honor. So SEC filings and the stock\n\n17 price of Marathon, there is clear Ninth Circuit law saying that\n\n18 is appropriately considered on a motion to dismiss.\n\n19 THE COURT: Yes, but you don't rely mostly on that.\n\n20 That's some of what you reply upon. You rely a great deal on\n\n21 these other communications and some of these arguments because\n\n22 their -- well, because their argument is based upon these other\n\n23 communications to try to establish knowledge as it relates to\n\n24 when your client may or may not have known about, sort of, these\n\n25 improper or allegedly improper accounting methods.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 43\n\n 6\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 And so I know that there's some documents in here that\n\n 2 potentially the Court could take judicial notice of, but there\n\n 3 are many that are not ones that would --\n\n 4 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n 5 THE COURT: -- be documents I would take judicial\n\n 6 notice of. So focus on which ones you think -- besides the two\n\n 7 you've identified, other categories which you think the Court\n\n 8 can take judicial notice of at this point.\n\n 9 MR. EHRLICH: So, Your Honor, if I may, I am happy to\n\n10 proceed on the basis that the only documents the Court takes\n\n11 judicial notice of are the SEC filings and the -- to the extent\n\n12 there's a dispute about them, right. The disputed documents,\n\n13 I'm happy to proceed on the basis that the Court take judicial\n\n14 notice only of the SEC filings and Marathon stock price. Both\n\n15 of which under either Metzler or Silicon Graphics, there's clear\n\n16 Ninth Circuit law that's appropriate. And I --\n\n17 THE COURT: Well --\n\n18 MR. EHRLICH: -- believe, Your Honor, that we win\n\n19 regardless.\n\n20 THE COURT: -- here's the issue. The issue is there's\n\n21 also context for some of the SEC -- are you talking about\n\n22 filings or are you talking about letters? Because the law's\n\n23 slightly different as to those two things. And you also relied\n\n24 upon the letters, right, and that's different than the filings.\n\n25 The filings, there's no issue. I don't even think they're\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 43\n\n 7\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 disputing that, but we have -- in addition to that, we have\n\n 2 comment letters, right.\n\n 3 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n 4 THE COURT: And there has to be some context for some\n\n 5 of these, and that's where I have a concern about considering\n\n 6 portions of them. Because you all provide context by\n\n 7 referencing some of these other exhibits in terms of when your\n\n 8 clients may or may not have known about things.\n\n 9 MR. EHRLICH: So, Your Honor, on the comment letters,\n\n10 each and every one of the comment letters is mentioned in the\n\n11 complaint, incorporated by reference in the complaint, and\n\n12 attached as exhibits to plaintiffs' opposition. There is only\n\n13 one comment letter --\n\n14 THE COURT: So I want to make sure that I'm --\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Yep.\n\n16 THE COURT: Because I want to make sure because I\n\n17 thought that they all weren't incorporated by reference, but let\n\n18 me ask plaintiffs this right now.\n\n19 Mr. Park, is that correct?\n\n20 MR. PARK: We do not -- I'm actually struggling to\n\n21 know -- we don't attach all of the comment letters because we\n\n22 wanted these -- to be somewhat efficient there.\n\n23 THE COURT: Well, it's one thing if you are attaching\n\n24 something in response to them attaching it versus something\n\n25 you're incorporating by reference. I want to make a distinction\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 43\n\n 8\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 between that.\n\n 2 MR. PARK: Of course, of course.\n\n 3 THE COURT: So which SEC comment letters have you\n\n 4 incorporated by reference as it relates to the amended\n\n 5 complaint?\n\n 6 MR. PARK: Your Honor, I know it is the letters dated\n\n 7 April 8th, April 22nd, May 27th, I believe -- May 27th is\n\n 8 correct, June 13th -- and I'm just giving the dates, Your Honor,\n\n 9 but I could tell you who the centers are if that's helpful --\n\n10 June 24th. And I know there's additional ones including\n\n11 obviously the one in February of 2023 which was the last one\n\n12 before the restatement.\n\n13 MR. EHRLICH: And, Your Honor --\n\n14 THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just --\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Oh, sorry. Excuse me.\n\n16 (Pause.)\n\n17 THE COURT: Is that it, Mr. Park?\n\n18 (Plaintiffs' counsel conferring.)\n\n19 MR. PARK: Certainly October 11th is referenced in the\n\n20 amended complaint or second amended complaint, Your Honor.\n\n21 THE COURT: Okay.\n\n22 MR. EHRLICH: And the only additional comment letter in\n\n23 the whole exchange, Judge, between the SEC CorpFin division and\n\n24 Marathon that is not in the list we just heard is Exhibit P to\n\n25 our motion, which if you look at Page 12 of plaintiffs'\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 43\n\n 9\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 opposition, it's Page 19 of 32 of ECF 87, they expressly state\n\n 2 they do not object to.\n\n 3 THE COURT: Okay.\n\n 4 MR. EHRLICH: So the entirety of the comment letter\n\n 5 exchange is undisputedly on the record in this motion and\n\n 6 appropriately so because it's at the heart of the complaint.\n\n 7 We're not asking the Court, to be clear, to go to the truth or\n\n 8 the falsity of it, right. This isn't about whether what was\n\n 9 said was true or false, but what was said, right. That's it.\n\n10 That's judicial notice.\n\n11 So I think that the entirety of the comment letter\n\n12 record really is undisputed.\n\n13 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So let's proceed with\n\n14 just those documents as it relates to the argument here.\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n16 THE COURT: And, again, addressing really a couple,\n\n17 sort of, core arguments I think that are made. One is just\n\n18 about, sort of, the basically, for lack of better expression,\n\n19 saying one thing and doing another, which is --\n\n20 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n21 THE COURT: -- one of the allegations which is about\n\n22 acknowledging that things were not properly, sort of, accounted\n\n23 for under GAAP, particularly as relates to this application of\n\n24 the operator definition. But then there's a filing or filings\n\n25 that occur subsequent to that, and that's at least a portion of\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 10 of 43\n\n 10\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 their main argument about, you know, saying or acknowledging one\n\n 2 thing and doing another. And I would like you to address\n\n 3 that --\n\n 4 MR. EHRLICH: Certainly.\n\n 5 THE COURT: -- with the documents that were referenced.\n\n 6 MR. EHRLICH: Certainly, Your Honor.\n\n 7 May I start with the impairment issue and then go to\n\n 8 the MaraPool issue?\n\n 9 THE COURT: Yes, sure.\n\n10 MR. EHRLICH: So let's start with the impairment issue.\n\n11 The assertion in the complaint is that the defendants were\n\n12 saying one thing to the SEC --\n\n13 THE COURT: Right.\n\n14 MR. EHRLICH: -- and another thing to the investing\n\n15 public.\n\n16 THE COURT: Right.\n\n17 MR. EHRLICH: And zooming out, the legal standard here\n\n18 is a cogent inference of scienter where the fraudulent inference\n\n19 is more compelling than the non-fraudulent inference. And, Your\n\n20 Honor, the idea that Marathon would be telling the SEC something\n\n21 different than the market when it's talking to the regulator of\n\n22 the market is kind of like going to the cops to cover up a\n\n23 crime. It's a fundamentally illogical inference, and it didn't\n\n24 happen. Because in Marathon's 2021 10-K it says in bold face\n\n25 type that the Bitcoin was valued at 4 p.m. New York time daily.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 11 of 43\n\n 11\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: Right. So you're saying they were saying\n\n 2 what they were doing.\n\n 3 MR. EHRLICH: Correct.\n\n 4 THE COURT: Right.\n\n 5 MR. EHRLICH: And it's on the face of the documents,\n\n 6 and that's what judicial notice is all about in this context.\n\n 7 The 10-K says 4 p.m. daily bold type every day.\n\n 8 What they say to the SEC is we do it on a daily basis.\n\n 9 In fact, the reason the SEC knew to ask the question is because\n\n10 it was in the filings.\n\n11 THE COURT: Right.\n\n12 MR. EHRLICH: Right, that very first comment letter\n\n13 that comes in April of 2022 is, \"Explain your reason for doing\n\n14 it this way. Why is that consistent with ASC 350, which says\n\n15 you should do it at the lowest point at any time?\"\n\n16 THE COURT: Right.\n\n17 MR. EHRLICH: But of course \"at any time\" is a\n\n18 ambiguous concept, any time during the day, any time during the\n\n19 week, any time during the month. So there were companies, like\n\n20 Marathon, at that point in time when it is undisputed that\n\n21 there's no authoritative accounting guidance on this point who\n\n22 said for administrative efficiency and lack of subjectivity, so\n\n23 we can't be criticized, we're going to do it at the same time\n\n24 every day. And that's what they said in their filings, and\n\n25 that's what they said to the SEC.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 12 of 43\n\n 12\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 And they say it in Exhibit P to our motion, their\n\n 2 August 1st response, when the SEC first says, \"It appears to us\n\n 3 this is inconsistent with ASC 350. You should please change\n\n 4 it.\" They say -- in contrast to the assertion that Marathon\n\n 5 refused, Exhibit P is clear on its face, and I want to quote it\n\n 6 because it's important. It says, quote, We are certainly\n\n 7 amenable to changing our methodology, close quote, but goes onto\n\n 8 explain its view that what they're doing by doing it on a daily\n\n 9 basis is, quote, aligned with industry standards as a practical\n\n10 expedient, close quote, and, quote, results in a materially\n\n11 accurate calculation, close quote.\n\n12 And beyond that -- excuse me. Just grab my water, Your\n\n13 Honor.\n\n14 THE COURT: Sure. Take your time.\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: I got a frog in my throat. Apologies.\n\n16 And in that same exhibit after saying that we believe\n\n17 it's materially accurate, in the prior response the SEC had\n\n18 said, \"Show us\" -- \"You're saying it's immaterial. Show us.\"\n\n19 And they do the calculation for 2021, and the difference in\n\n20 digital asset value is 2.8 million on total assets of the\n\n21 company of 1.4 billion, I mean, less than one-hundredth of 1\n\n22 percent difference. And if you want to just look at digital\n\n23 assets, which is 120 -- more than 120 million, it's still less\n\n24 than 2 percent of digital assets and they're totally\n\n25 transparent. And by the way, those same numbers are in the\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 13 of 43\n\n 13\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 public filings.\n\n 2 And, you know, while plaintiffs say in their complaint\n\n 3 they said something different to the SEC -- they told the cops\n\n 4 the truth and not the market -- it's not actually what it shows.\n\n 5 And what Metzler -- I think the Ninth Circuit --\n\n 6 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. What obligation\n\n 7 do your clients have to actually also reference the fact that\n\n 8 there was a back-and-forth with the SEC? That's -- another part\n\n 9 of their argument is about disclosing the disagreement.\n\n10 MR. EHRLICH: Right. Well, this isn't --\n\n11 THE COURT: There's no disclosure of that, right.\n\n12 MR. EHRLICH: That -- 100 percent, Your Honor. 100\n\n13 percent. There is not a disclosure, and I don't believe this is\n\n14 actually a disclosure case. But --\n\n15 THE COURT: I don't think it's a disclosure case\n\n16 either. They're using it --\n\n17 MR. EHRLICH: For scienter, but that's important.\n\n18 THE COURT: -- for scienter, right.\n\n19 MR. EHRLICH: That's important. What they're saying\n\n20 is, \"You didn't disclose it. It shows you're trying to deceive\n\n21 the market.\"\n\n22 THE COURT: Right, you're trying to hide it.\n\n23 MR. EHRLICH: You're trying to deceive the market --\n\n24 THE COURT: Right.\n\n25 MR. EHRLICH: -- right, but there's a lot of case law\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 14 of 43\n\n 14\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 on this. The Eighth Circuit addressed exactly this question in\n\n 2 Podraza. There are District Courts, including the Plug Power\n\n 3 case, that say as a matter of law absent more -- and we don't\n\n 4 have more here, Your Honor. Your Honor dismissed the last\n\n 5 complaint, right. Then they added the comment letter thing. So\n\n 6 that's what we are looking at that is different from last time.\n\n 7 And what Podraza and what Plug Power and other courts to address\n\n 8 this have said is that the comment letter process is an\n\n 9 iterative discussion with a regulator on lots of things.\n\n10 If you look at the very first letter that Marathon got\n\n11 in April of '22, it is a laundry list of 16 items. And when you\n\n12 look at all of those exhibits, they're talking about, like, all\n\n13 these different technical accounting and disclosure issues, and\n\n14 the law is --\n\n15 THE COURT: Let me stop you for a moment, Mr. Ehrlich.\n\n16 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah.\n\n17 THE COURT: Because one of the concerns I have about\n\n18 this is this starts to feel like it's bleeding a little bit into\n\n19 a motion for summary judgment as relates to the valuation or the\n\n20 weighing of what the letters mean or the hiding of it. I mean,\n\n21 even the idea of which is a more, sort of, reasonable or\n\n22 plausible, whatever, however they said it -- whatever that\n\n23 standard is --\n\n24 MR. EHRLICH: Yes.\n\n25 THE COURT: -- that starts to feel a little bit more\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 15 of 43\n\n 15\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 actually like a trial, but even more like a motion for summary\n\n 2 judgment. So one of the concerns I had --\n\n 3 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n 4 THE COURT: -- has to deal with the fact that at this\n\n 5 procedural stage should I be engaging in a weighing if I think\n\n 6 it's a close call. Because it seems to me one of the things you\n\n 7 have to sort of convince me of is that it's not close enough to\n\n 8 let the case move forward because I sort --\n\n 9 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n10 THE COURT: -- of feel like the way the case law reads\n\n11 is, \"If you think it's close, District Court, you probably\n\n12 should let the case move forward.\" And so I believe Podraza is\n\n13 saying to the Court, \"As a matter of law, if you think that the\n\n14 factors laid out are so clearly insufficient,\" then I can rule\n\n15 at this stage. But I don't read it to be saying that I couldn't\n\n16 look at the, sort of, overall circumstances of the facts and\n\n17 find this is close enough to let the case move forward. So help\n\n18 me understand why you think this isn't close.\n\n19 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n20 THE COURT: Because to me that's how I read the\n\n21 standard.\n\n22 MR. EHRLICH: Sure. It's not close, Judge, because we\n\n23 got to zoom out. They have to plead fraudulent intent.\n\n24 THE COURT: Right.\n\n25 MR. EHRLICH: They need a motive. This is a fraud\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 16 of 43\n\n 16\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 without a motive, Judge. In most of the securities cases that I\n\n 2 litigate that get past a motion to dismiss, the company's trying\n\n 3 to juice earnings because they want to get acquired. They're\n\n 4 trying to withhold negative information about a product because\n\n 5 there's a regulatory approval. What is the motive for not\n\n 6 disclosing to the market a back-and-forth with their regulator\n\n 7 about two esoteric accounting issues that are tangential to\n\n 8 their business? Like, why would you deceive the market? And\n\n 9 there's no other, you know, indicia of scienter. You have\n\n10 usually, Your Honor, a confidential witness. Counsel for\n\n11 plaintiffs is able counsel. I have encountered them in many\n\n12 cases. They have former employees who will say they were trying\n\n13 to do this because they wanted to get acquired. You would have\n\n14 an e-mail. You would have a text. You would have a short\n\n15 seller report. You would have some type of something else that\n\n16 would say why they were doing this. We have none of that here.\n\n17 And, Judge, like, let's remember what this dialogue\n\n18 with the SEC, the 16 issues -- these two, are about. One is\n\n19 about this MaraPool thing.\n\n20 THE COURT: Right.\n\n21 MR. EHRLICH: Paragraph 80 of the complaint makes clear\n\n22 it was in existence for 10 months. This was not a major part of\n\n23 their business. And look at Exhibit A to their complaint about\n\n24 what happened when Marathon changed the accounting treatment.\n\n25 Revenue went up. Cost of revenue went up. There was no\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 17 of 43\n\n 17\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 ultimate change to any, like, key performance indicator of the\n\n 2 business, no key metric, you know. There's no analyst who after\n\n 3 this was revealed -- you know, often in these cases when -- when\n\n 4 the so-called fraud is revealed, they'll say, \"Oh, wow. Now we\n\n 5 look at the company differently because now we know that they're\n\n 6 using a principle rather\" -- nobody said that because the\n\n 7 accounting costs went up. Revenue went up. It was a wash.\n\n 8 THE COURT: Right.\n\n 9 MR. EHRLICH: And on the -- on the Bitcoin thing, it's\n\n10 2.5 percent -- 7 percent of the net assets of -- of the digital\n\n11 assets. This is a company, the 2022 10-K makes clear, has $1.4\n\n12 billion in assets. This restatement is a few million dollars.\n\n13 So they're going back and forth about two esoteric accounting\n\n14 judgments about, sort of, marginal parts of the business where\n\n15 there's no other allegation of intent to deceive. You have, you\n\n16 know, no insider dumping stock --\n\n17 THE COURT: Right.\n\n18 MR. EHRLICH: -- which is a typical allegation here.\n\n19 So I don't think the weighing of the inference is as close when,\n\n20 on the one hand, you have a back-and-forth with an -- ordinary\n\n21 back-and-forth -- and it's clear, Your Honor, you know, the Plug\n\n22 Power case --\n\n23 THE COURT: But I think their argument is this --\n\n24 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah.\n\n25 THE COURT: Mr. Ehrlich, which is when you were told --\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 18 of 43\n\n 18\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 your clients were told essentially about the problems in\n\n 2 accounting methods, they knew when they received the letters\n\n 3 that they were wrong and they prolonged this process. And they,\n\n 4 by doing so, were able to file inaccurate public filings. I\n\n 5 mean, that -- to me, the best version of their argument is to\n\n 6 say --\n\n 7 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah, but to what end?\n\n 8 THE COURT: -- is to say, \"You all knew -- from the\n\n 9 moment you started getting these letters you knew from jump\n\n10 street, okay, we're doing it wrong. And you kept arguing when\n\n11 it was obvious that you were wrong and you eventually corrected\n\n12 it, but it took time to do that.\"\n\n13 And as I understand what you're saying is that, \"Okay.\n\n14 Even if that is true, that doesn't get you all the way here past\n\n15 a motion to dismiss because you'd have to show there is some\n\n16 motive for us to do that. Okay. Maybe we were stubborn. Maybe\n\n17 we thought we were right for longer than we should have, but we\n\n18 weren't doing it for any particular reason to benefit the\n\n19 company. We just thought this was the way we should be doing it\n\n20 at the time.\"\n\n21 MR. EHRLICH: And where is the particularized\n\n22 allegation that anybody didn't believe what they were doing?\n\n23 THE COURT: Right.\n\n24 MR. EHRLICH: And in response -- and you know what's\n\n25 interesting here, Judge, in the whole chain of correspondence,\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 19 of 43\n\n 19\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 SEC raises a question. Marathon responds. SEC says, \"It\n\n 2 appears to us it's not consistent with ASC 350.\" Marathon says,\n\n 3 \"Okay. We'll change it if you want, but here's our material\" --\n\n 4 THE COURT: Here's why we think --\n\n 5 MR. EHRLICH: And the SEC doesn't come back and bring\n\n 6 the boom down. They asked for more information and that\n\n 7 dialogue continues.\n\n 8 And, by the way, when the SEC says, \"We're not\n\n 9 persuaded,\" six days later, which is again -- you know, if you\n\n10 read I think in Podraza and the other cases, the fact that the\n\n11 company upon the SEC saying, \"Nope, we disagree,\" they promptly\n\n12 change the public accounting.\n\n13 THE COURT: Okay. Let me let Mr. Park come up because\n\n14 I want him to address that point directly. And I may bring you\n\n15 back up after that, but let me let him address these issues.\n\n16 MR. EHRLICH: Of course. Thank you, Judge.\n\n17 MR. PARK: Yes, Your Honor. A lot of points were made.\n\n18 I'm --\n\n19 THE COURT: Let me ask this question. Why is this not\n\n20 a principal disagreement between a regulator and an entity\n\n21 trying to work out a standard for which there's not a lot of\n\n22 history for an industry that's relatively new, which I think I\n\n23 can consider in the context of inferring some scienter? Why\n\n24 isn't this just, right, you know, Marathon saying, \"Look, we\n\n25 think that we're right about how we should do this. We want to\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 20 of 43\n\n 20\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 argue that to you. Maybe you don't believe us. We think that\n\n 2 we're right\"?\n\n 3 So why isn't that this case, Mr. Park?\n\n 4 MR. PARK: Oh, I think there are several reasons why\n\n 5 the defendants are incorrect on that. One is that their --\n\n 6 their position that they're right was not -- again, not what\n\n 7 they told investors. They said they used the price at any time,\n\n 8 and they said at any time since acquisition of the particular\n\n 9 Bitcoin, not -- so the discussion about any time during a week\n\n10 or a month is -- is irrelevant.\n\n11 Second, and --\n\n12 THE COURT: And I'm sorry. Repeat that part again\n\n13 because I want to make sure I'm understanding --\n\n14 MR. PARK: Sure.\n\n15 THE COURT: -- what you're saying. Because what you're\n\n16 saying is that what they told investors is not exactly what they\n\n17 were doing because obviously Mr. Ehrlich was saying, \"Look, the\n\n18 reason why the SEC sent these letters is because we described\n\n19 our methodology and it was public and people knew about it.\"\n\n20 And you're saying that's not true?\n\n21 MR. PARK: I believe that's not true. Firstly, I do\n\n22 not --\n\n23 THE COURT: Okay. Point --\n\n24 MR. PARK: I'm sorry, Your Honor.\n\n25 THE COURT: Point to me the part where it says that in\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 21 of 43\n\n 21\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 an exhibit or something because I want to make sure I'm looking\n\n 2 at the correct language.\n\n 3 MR. PARK: Sure. Yes, Your Honor. So I'm going to\n\n 4 point you, if I may, to the complaint, Paragraph 63 of the\n\n 5 complaint. And this is --\n\n 6 THE COURT: Hold on just a moment. Let me get there.\n\n 7 MR. PARK: Of course. It's Page 18 of the complaint,\n\n 8 Paragraph 63.\n\n 9 (Pause.)\n\n10 THE COURT: Okay. Which paragraph are we looking at?\n\n11 MR. PARK: 63, Your Honor.\n\n12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead.\n\n13 MR. PARK: So this is a press release regarding the\n\n14 first quarter 2021 results. It's issued on the first day of the\n\n15 class period. And it says -- we bold it of course. This is a\n\n16 discussion of measurement of an impairment of the company's\n\n17 Bitcoin. And it says, \"Marathon considers the lowest price of\n\n18 one bitcoin quoted on the active exchange at any time since\n\n19 acquiring the specific bitcoin.\"\n\n20 So I'm not quite clear what counsel was talking about\n\n21 with at any time during the week or month. Marathon itself said\n\n22 we measure it based on the lowest price at any time.\n\n23 There is no dispute that they were not doing that.\n\n24 There's no dispute about that. They were telling investors one\n\n25 thing and doing the other.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 22 of 43\n\n 22\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 Now, the SEC, it appears, understood from other\n\n 2 ambiguous disclosures in their filings what their accounting\n\n 3 was, but the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance is not the\n\n 4 standard that reasonable investors are held to.\n\n 5 Moreover, I think on --\n\n 6 THE COURT: So you're saying it doesn't matter what the\n\n 7 SEC understood. I have to look at what they were saying in\n\n 8 their public filing.\n\n 9 MR. PARK: For purposes of determining what a\n\n10 reasonable investor understood --\n\n11 THE COURT: Right.\n\n12 MR. PARK: -- that's correct. I mean, this is a very\n\n13 clear statement about what their accounting treatment was, and\n\n14 it was incorrect. It was false.\n\n15 THE COURT: Right.\n\n16 MR. PARK: As to the point about the defendants'\n\n17 apparent subjective belief that they were correct, this is --\n\n18 this is squarely covered by the Omnicare case which addresses\n\n19 statements of opinions or belief. Defendants say a lot of these\n\n20 statements are ones of opinion or belief. And Omnicare holds\n\n21 that such statements can be misleading if they omit material\n\n22 facts about the issuer's inquiry into the subject of the\n\n23 statement.\n\n24 And so I'm going to -- I'm going to quote from Omnicare\n\n25 which is a 2015 Supreme Court case. The quote is, Consider an\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 23 of 43\n\n 23\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 unadorned statement of opinion about legal compliance: \"We\n\n 2 believe our\" statement -- \"our conduct\" -- excuse me -- \"is\n\n 3 lawful\" -- some ellipses -- but if the issuer made the statement\n\n 4 in the face of its lawyer's contrary advice or with knowledge\n\n 5 that the Federal Government was taking the opposite view, the\n\n 6 investor again has cause to complain: He expects not just that\n\n 7 the issuer believes the opinion (however irrationally), but that\n\n 8 it fairly aligns with the information in the issuer's possession\n\n 9 at the time.\n\n10 So they believe they were correct, again, however\n\n11 rationally, that's fine. If they wanted to plead their case\n\n12 with the SEC, that's fine --\n\n13 THE COURT: But they can't --\n\n14 MR. PARK: -- they didn't tell investors --\n\n15 THE COURT: You're saying that they can't be pleading\n\n16 to the SEC and at the same time telling investors something\n\n17 different in terms of what they were doing.\n\n18 MR. PARK: Correct, correct. And, again, they --\n\n19 unlike in Podraza, they did not restate when the SEC told them\n\n20 to. The SEC said on May 27th, \"Explain how this is consistent\n\n21 with the ASC --\n\n22 (Court reporter clarification.)\n\n23 MR. PARK: -- \"with the ASC, with the relevant\n\n24 accounting standards complication.\" That was the second letter\n\n25 on this subject of Bitcoin impairment.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 24 of 43\n\n 24\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 And then on June 24th the SEC said, \"Your policy does\n\n 2 not appear to comply with ASC. Please revise your accounting.\"\n\n 3 Defendants did not do so. That was in June. They did not do\n\n 4 so. I understand they believe they were correct and\n\n 5 corresponded with the SEC about it. They didn't restate or tell\n\n 6 any investors about this correspondence until February, when\n\n 7 again the SEC said, \"Your policy does not comply with GAAP.\n\n 8 Please revise your account.\" And defendants have no explanation\n\n 9 for why they didn't do that the first time the SEC said it.\n\n10 So, again, we think that we have clear falsity here\n\n11 before the correspondence, certainly once the correspondence\n\n12 began, and there is -- can be no dispute that defendants knew\n\n13 about the correspondence because it was to and from the CFO of\n\n14 the company, Defendant Gallagher.\n\n15 This is -- and, again, defendants point out that we\n\n16 don't have any confidential witnesses. One reason, Your Honor,\n\n17 is that this was an unusually small company, which is why we\n\n18 think the core operations inference contributes to scienter\n\n19 along with the other factual allegations. This is -- the Ninth\n\n20 Circuit holds that that inference can contribute to scienter in\n\n21 rare circumstances. This is a rare circumstance. You have\n\n22 three employees just before the class period. You have 10\n\n23 employees right before the SEC correspondence begins.\n\n24 There's -- it's basically the defendants and a couple of other\n\n25 people, and you have Defendant Thiel testifying that he was\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 25 of 43\n\n 25\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 involved in every decision at the company. So this is the rare\n\n 2 circumstances where they would have known about this accounting\n\n 3 issue.\n\n 4 I would also add, Your Honor, that the standard for\n\n 5 scienter does not require motive, and it does not require intent\n\n 6 to defraud. Deliberate recklessness is enough. The defendants\n\n 7 can't just hide their heads in the sand and -- and claim, \"Well,\n\n 8 you know, we didn't really understand.\" The SEC told them they\n\n 9 were incorrect, and they didn't do what they said that they were\n\n10 doing.\n\n11 So I think that answers Your Honor's questions. I'm\n\n12 happy to continue to other issues.\n\n13 THE COURT: Well, those are the questions I am focussed\n\n14 on because I think -- I think that's the core of the dispute\n\n15 between the parties as it relates to particularly scienter.\n\n16 That's -- as I indicated the last time that we were here --\n\n17 MR. PARK: Correct.\n\n18 THE COURT: -- that was the concern that the Court had,\n\n19 and you have added these additional pieces of information. And\n\n20 so I don't have questions about any other aspects of what's\n\n21 being argued here because I'm focussed on that central dispute\n\n22 between the parties.\n\n23 MR. PARK: Understood, Your Honor. I could --\n\n24 THE COURT: So let me let Mr. Ehrlich come back up\n\n25 here.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 26 of 43\n\n 26\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 MR. PARK: Sure.\n\n 2 THE COURT: I expect he'll have a few comments, and\n\n 3 then you may have a few in response. And let's see where that\n\n 4 leads us.\n\n 5 MR. PARK: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n 6 MR. EHRLICH: So, Your Honor, a few things in response\n\n 7 to Mr. Park. First, Paragraph 63 of the complaint that he\n\n 8 pointed you to was results of the first quarter of 2021. It's a\n\n 9 press release that articulates the standard, which is \"at any\n\n10 time.\" It's sort of -- I would -- it's true the question's how\n\n11 is it implemented, right. It could be done on a daily basis.\n\n12 What ends --\n\n13 THE COURT: Yes, but it doesn't --\n\n14 MR. EHRLICH: -- up happening --\n\n15 THE COURT: But it doesn't say what they're doing. So\n\n16 if they know what they're doing and they're not stating it here,\n\n17 why is that not an issue? Again, we're at a motion to dismiss.\n\n18 MR. EHRLICH: Understood.\n\n19 THE COURT: Right.\n\n20 MR. EHRLICH: This --\n\n21 THE COURT: This does not accurately state what\n\n22 Marathon is doing.\n\n23 MR. EHRLICH: Well --\n\n24 THE COURT: It provides a general umbrella --\n\n25 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 27 of 43\n\n 27\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: -- but they had a very specific method --\n\n 2 MR. EHRLICH: Right.\n\n 3 THE COURT: -- which they could have -- and they knew\n\n 4 about it at the time they issued the press release, and they\n\n 5 don't say that.\n\n 6 MR. EHRLICH: Well, Your Honor, this is a press release\n\n 7 regarding the overall earnings results of the company, and it\n\n 8 gives the big-picture standard. When they give the annual\n\n 9 reports and the annual financial statements, they do. And by\n\n10 the way, this is a year and a half -- a year before the first\n\n11 comment letter. In the 10-K at the end of the year they have\n\n12 notes in the financial statements that give the details about\n\n13 how it is that they implement the standard \"at any time.\"\n\n14 And --\n\n15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. The end of the year?\n\n16 MR. EHRLICH: 2021.\n\n17 THE COURT: 2021. Okay.\n\n18 MR. EHRLICH: If the Court looks at the yearend 10-K,\n\n19 it's at ECF 85-4.\n\n20 THE COURT: Okay.\n\n21 (Pause.)\n\n22 MR. EHRLICH: And it's Page 8 of 9 of the ECF filing.\n\n23 These are the complete financial statements for the year.\n\n24 THE COURT: What I'm trying to do, Mr. Ehrlich, is line\n\n25 up --\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 28 of 43\n\n 28\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 MR. EHRLICH: Yep.\n\n 2 THE COURT: -- the press release with the actual public\n\n 3 filing because, obviously, if what you're saying to me is the\n\n 4 press release provides an overall picture, but the filings\n\n 5 provided the detailed picture, and that's where even a\n\n 6 reasonable investor should look --\n\n 7 MR. EHRLICH: Yes.\n\n 8 THE COURT: -- to figure out the details of how the\n\n 9 accounting procedures are being implemented.\n\n10 MR. EHRLICH: And I would encourage the Court to look\n\n11 at Page 8 of 9 of 85-4.\n\n12 THE COURT: Okay. Hold on.\n\n13 There's a lot of small print here, Mr. Ehrlich, so\n\n14 you'd have to tell me where --\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Note 2. And you'll see there's one, two,\n\n16 three, four, five paragraphs and the last one is Digital\n\n17 Currencies. Are you with me?\n\n18 THE COURT: Yep.\n\n19 MR. EHRLICH: And you will see that it goes through and\n\n20 explains how digital currencies are included in current assets\n\n21 in the consolidated balance sheets as an indefinite lived\n\n22 tangible asset. And then it goes on that we have -- apply ASC\n\n23 350. And if you read the paragraph the -- one, two -- third\n\n24 line up from the bottom that sentence begins: \"Bitcoin, ether,\n\n25 and gold prices are taken at,\" bold face, \"approximately 4 p.m.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 29 of 43\n\n 29\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 New York time.\"\n\n 2 THE COURT: Right.\n\n 3 MR. EHRLICH: Now, look, this is all technical\n\n 4 accounting jargon, but if someone wanted to understand the\n\n 5 technical accounting, it is disclosed in the annual financial\n\n 6 statements, indeed, in bold face.\n\n 7 So they were not telling the SEC one thing and the\n\n 8 market the other, and the SEC didn't have to, you know, divine\n\n 9 from some vague unclear disclosure. It's right there, bold\n\n10 print, 4 p.m. New York time daily. And the SEC -- the whole\n\n11 point of this comment letter process is that the company puts\n\n12 this out, and the SEC reads it carefully and sends lots of\n\n13 detailed technical accounting questions. And they go back and\n\n14 forth for months on them. That's the whole CorpFin process,\n\n15 Your Honor. And that's why it's not reckless.\n\n16 I mean, first of all, you know, lack of motive -- which\n\n17 I think counsel's conceded at this point that there's no motive\n\n18 because he's now gone to reckless. But reckless is essentially,\n\n19 you know, willful blindness. It's a very high standard. And\n\n20 lack of motive is very probative of the absence of scienter.\n\n21 And, you know, I would encourage the Court to look at\n\n22 all the similarities, frankly, between Podraza and here because\n\n23 what the Court says in Podraza is there's nothing else. And in\n\n24 this case, too, there's nothing else.\n\n25 And, you know, another similarity which I didn't\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 30 of 43\n\n 30\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 mention earlier is the company's outside auditor signed off and\n\n 2 gave them a --\n\n 3 THE COURT: Right.\n\n 4 MR. EHRLICH: -- clean bill of health on their -- on\n\n 5 their audit statement every year they were using this method,\n\n 6 same as Podraza.\n\n 7 And Plug Power is another cases, Your Honor, that\n\n 8 discusses comment letters. And I would also recommend it to the\n\n 9 Court because what the Plug Power court says and I think it's\n\n10 relevant here is there is no freestanding duty to disclose the\n\n11 back-and-forth with the Government in the comment letter\n\n12 process. The only thing the regulations require, and this is in\n\n13 Plug Power, is that when you file your annual filings, if there\n\n14 are material unresolved comments, you've got to disclose them.\n\n15 THE COURT: So let me ask this one question --\n\n16 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah.\n\n17 THE COURT: -- which is the other question that\n\n18 Mr. Park raised, which is that the June letter asks --\n\n19 MR. EHRLICH: Right --\n\n20 THE COURT: -- Marathon to revise. They don't. They\n\n21 make a filing in August, right. No discussion about being asked\n\n22 to revise, right.\n\n23 MR. EHRLICH: Uh-hmm.\n\n24 THE COURT: And then they're asked to revise again the\n\n25 following year, and then there's a revision. So what about the\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 31 of 43\n\n 31\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 issue of the timing of the or the alleged, quote/unquote, delay\n\n 2 in when they're asked to revise and the revision and that\n\n 3 becoming public?\n\n 4 MR. EHRLICH: Sure.\n\n 5 When they're asked to revise in the June 24th comment\n\n 6 letter, the response is, \"We of course will if you want us to,\n\n 7 but here's the reasons why we continue to believe we're wrong\n\n 8 [sic].\" And the SEC's response -- if the SEC responded and\n\n 9 said, \"You got to do it\" -- when they did that, they did it six\n\n10 days later. So the response to \"please revise\" to a letter that\n\n11 said, \"It appears to us that this doesn't\" -- \"is inconsistent\n\n12 with ASC 350,\" was to say, \"We will if you want\" -- they offer\n\n13 to.\n\n14 THE COURT: Right.\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: \"But here's why we think it's immaterial\n\n16 and more accurate.\" And their response wasn't go do it, it was\n\n17 actually, \"We want to hear some more about that,\" several times,\n\n18 until, \"Nope, we're not persuaded. Do it.\" And it was done six\n\n19 days later.\n\n20 THE COURT: Right. So you're saying it's different\n\n21 from a case where the SEC says, \"Okay. We're past discussion.\n\n22 You need to change it,\" and they --\n\n23 MR. EHRLICH: And they just don't.\n\n24 THE COURT: And they just don't change it.\n\n25 MR. EHRLICH: Right. And that's another point of\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 32 of 43\n\n 32\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 similarity to Podraza where the Court says because they acted\n\n 2 swiftly when given a final decision there's -- this is not\n\n 3 evidence of scienter.\n\n 4 THE COURT: Okay.\n\n 5 MR. EHRLICH: I do -- Your Honor, if you'll -- I know\n\n 6 we've been here a while. I do want to just touch briefly, if\n\n 7 you'd let me, on loss causation.\n\n 8 THE COURT: Well --\n\n 9 MR. EHRLICH: Yeah.\n\n10 THE COURT: -- I don't really have questions about\n\n11 that, honestly.\n\n12 MR. EHRLICH: Okay.\n\n13 THE COURT: But if you want to touch briefly, I'll give\n\n14 you a few minutes to talk about it.\n\n15 MR. EHRLICH: Well, I just -- I want to point out that\n\n16 it is an independent basis. And the Ninth Circuit decision that\n\n17 we submitted two days ago, the one thing that we did fail to\n\n18 note is that it is an affirmance actually of the Ramos case that\n\n19 we cite in various places in our brief. Because, you know, in\n\n20 the Ninth Circuit, in contrast to a lot of other places, it is\n\n21 clear that plaintiffs have to plead loss causation with\n\n22 particularity, right. They have to show a causal connection.\n\n23 And what the Ninth Circuit said just last week -- and I know\n\n24 it's -- you know, it's a memorandum disposition, but it's\n\n25 instructive, right, as to what three judges think anyway. What\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 33 of 43\n\n 33\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 they observed there is that because Comerica's stock price\n\n 2 decline following some article was modest, typical, and quickly\n\n 3 reversed -- that's what they say, \"modest, typical, and quickly\n\n 4 reversed\" -- plaintiff hadn't sufficiently alleged loss\n\n 5 causation. And this is exactly on all fours here.\n\n 6 The stock price drop is modest in absolute terms. The\n\n 7 Metzler case in the Ninth Circuit talks about a 10 percent drop\n\n 8 as being modest. This is 8 percent over two days. And, indeed,\n\n 9 on the day of the announcement there was effectively a .1\n\n10 percent drop. It was typical. In 35 percent of the days there\n\n11 was more fluctuation than the days that are supposed revelation\n\n12 of the fraud.\n\n13 And in -- and in the Ramos case the Ninth Circuit just\n\n14 affirmed was 28 percent, and it was quickly reversed. Within 11\n\n15 trading days it was above the pre-disclosure point and for two\n\n16 years stayed above. So if this was some significant fraud that\n\n17 had been revealed, the logic of it -- of the cases is you would\n\n18 have seen some type of sustained atypical drop.\n\n19 And, again, Your Honor, in cases where there's loss\n\n20 causation, there's more. There's analyst commentary. There's a\n\n21 CNBC article, \"Oh, wow, there's this shocking news from\n\n22 Marathon.\" There is a Bloomberg article. There is something\n\n23 that says this stock price drop is connected to the market\n\n24 learning of these events.\n\n25 The only people I'm aware of anywhere ever who have\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 34 of 43\n\n 34\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 said that this modest, typical, and short-lived stock drop is\n\n 2 connected to the revelation of these two relatively esoteric\n\n 3 accounting judgments, who's ever made that connection, is\n\n 4 plaintiffs. There's no other evidence. There's no other facts\n\n 5 cited. And in the Ninth Circuit you've got to do better than\n\n 6 that.\n\n 7 They take some pretty unremarkable events and try to\n\n 8 say there's causation, and I don't think they plead it with\n\n 9 particularity. And I think the opinion last week makes that\n\n10 clear. This isn't Rule 8. This is Rule 9. And, respectfully,\n\n11 they haven't done it.\n\n12 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich.\n\n13 Mr. Park, one final opportunity.\n\n14 MR. PARK: Thank you, Your Honor. I have a few points\n\n15 that I'd wish to make.\n\n16 First, a few minutes ago defense counsel pointed to a\n\n17 disclosure in the company's 2021 10-K. But, again, in the\n\n18 complaint we -- we allege the contents of that 10-K on Paragraph\n\n19 66 which is basically the same as the statement that we pointed\n\n20 the Court to earlier, which is in the 10-K issued on March 10th,\n\n21 2022, it stated that the company, quote, accounted for its\n\n22 Bitcoin as indefinite intangible assets which are subject to\n\n23 impair- --\n\n24 THE COURT: I'm sorry.\n\n25 MR. PARK: I'm sorry, Your Honor.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 35 of 43\n\n 35\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: You're referencing --\n\n 2 MR. PARK: I'm in Paragraph 66 of the second amended\n\n 3 complaint.\n\n 4 THE COURT: But you're referencing the 10-K on March\n\n 5 22nd?\n\n 6 MR. PARK: Correct.\n\n 7 THE COURT: I mean, March 10 of 2022.\n\n 8 MR. PARK: Correct, for -- for the 2021 results. And I\n\n 9 can shorten my quoting of it, but the key point is that they say\n\n10 they're looking at the carrying -- if the carrying value\n\n11 declines at any --\n\n12 (Court reporter clarification.)\n\n13 MR. PARK: If the carrying value of the Bitcoin\n\n14 declines from its -- excuse me -- the fair value declines below\n\n15 the carrying value at any time since acquisition, and they say\n\n16 that the --\n\n17 THE COURT: Where do they say that on the 10-K?\n\n18 MR. PARK: I don't have the actual 10-K with me. I did\n\n19 not print out all 26 exhibits, Your Honor, with me, but --\n\n20 THE COURT: Hold on.\n\n21 MR. PARK: -- Paragraph 66 of the second amended\n\n22 complaint. And there's no dispute that this is -- that this is\n\n23 a correct quoting of the 10-K.\n\n24 THE COURT: Well, what if they say both?\n\n25 MR. PARK: What if they say both? I think, Your Honor,\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 36 of 43\n\n 36\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 then a reasonable investor could be quite misled because this is\n\n 2 a very clear statement about what they were doing.\n\n 3 THE COURT: Yes, but so is this other one, right.\n\n 4 This --\n\n 5 MR. PARK: I --\n\n 6 THE COURT: I mean, because the section that\n\n 7 Mr. Ehrlich cited provides very specific information. In fact,\n\n 8 it's bolded. It's actually one of the few portions of the 10-K\n\n 9 that's actually bolded, other than the headings. Because I\n\n10 don't see the part that you're referencing --\n\n11 MR. PARK: I'm sorry, Your Honor.\n\n12 THE COURT: -- bolded.\n\n13 MR. PARK: I don't have the page number of the 10-K.\n\n14 THE COURT: That's okay. I'm just trying to find it on\n\n15 the 10-K so I can try to compare it.\n\n16 But assuming that you're both correct, if it's -- if\n\n17 it's in there, perhaps, there's some ambiguity. Doesn't that\n\n18 militate against scienter, right? Because then, perhaps, it\n\n19 could have been stated more clearly. But if it's revealed\n\n20 someplace within the 10-K, even if there's some confusion, why\n\n21 isn't that sufficient to defeat scienter here?\n\n22 MR. PARK: Your Honor, for two reasons. Firstly is\n\n23 that we've established that the statement that I've quoted is\n\n24 false, for one. Secondly, the defendants knew what their actual\n\n25 accounting treatment was and they knew that it was not what was\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 37 of 43\n\n 37\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 stated in Paragraph 66. So --\n\n 2 THE COURT: Yes, but they --\n\n 3 MR. PARK: -- they acknowledge the falsity.\n\n 4 THE COURT: Right, no, but they put it in the 10-K\n\n 5 elsewhere. So if the whole argument is about a misstatement or\n\n 6 a falsity, right, why would you put it someplace else in the\n\n 7 document if you're trying to hide it? There would be no\n\n 8 reason -- and then bold it on top of that, right. That doesn't\n\n 9 seem to me to suggest someone's trying to hide the actual\n\n10 formulation because you would do the exact opposite. You\n\n11 wouldn't put it in and you certainly wouldn't bold it.\n\n12 So why would I find that where they've actually done\n\n13 that, even if they referenced this other language you talked\n\n14 about, why isn't that enough to defeat scienter here?\n\n15 MR. PARK: Well, Your Honor, in the complaint we\n\n16 actually go through exactly why the disclosure that defense\n\n17 counsel pointed to actually is not clear. And in their reply\n\n18 they say, \"Well, there was a typo, and that's why it's not\n\n19 clear.\" But, regardless, it was not clear.\n\n20 The statement only addressed the mined Bitcoin\n\n21 balances, not balances that were -- excuse me -- not Bitcoin\n\n22 that were bought, and does not clearly apply to Bitcoin that\n\n23 were received as fractional rewards from the Bitcoin accounting\n\n24 pool known as MaraPool, as we talked about earlier.\n\n25 It also doesn't clearly say that they -- it says that\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 38 of 43\n\n 38\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 they looked at the nightly -- looked at the price on a nightly\n\n 2 basis, but they didn't say whether they were using that price or\n\n 3 reviewing it in order to determine the lowest price in the\n\n 4 preceding 24 hours.\n\n 5 And of course as we point out in Paragraphs 76 and 77\n\n 6 of the second amended complaint, it's -- the final sentence\n\n 7 which I think is the key one according to defendants is simply\n\n 8 ungrammatical. It does not make sense as written. And now in\n\n 9 litigation they are attributing it to a typo, but regardless\n\n10 it's not clear to investors.\n\n11 THE COURT: Okay.\n\n12 MR. PARK: And, again, we have knowledge of falsity\n\n13 which is why the -- the questions about recklessness or motive\n\n14 are a little bit beside the point because we have knowledge of\n\n15 falsity.\n\n16 THE COURT: The knowledge --\n\n17 MR. PARK: That is scienter.\n\n18 THE COURT: You mean the knowledge being that the SEC\n\n19 told them that they disagreed and they shouldn't be doing it\n\n20 this way, and they refused to make the change and they still\n\n21 filed these documents.\n\n22 MR. PARK: Yes, Your Honor, but also before the\n\n23 correspondence, the knowledge that when they said they were\n\n24 looking at the lowest price at any time since acquisition, that\n\n25 they were not doing that.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 39 of 43\n\n 39\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 I do also want to make a point about defense counsel\n\n 2 mentioned that they don't have a freestanding duty to disclose\n\n 3 the SEC correspondence apart from material comments in a 10-K.\n\n 4 But a duty to disclose can arise in two different ways. One is\n\n 5 a rule requiring disclosure. The other is in order not to make\n\n 6 a statement misleading. That is black letter law under the\n\n 7 Securities -- under the '34 Act, and that's what we allege in\n\n 8 the complaint. They made statements that were misleading by\n\n 9 virtue of their failure to disclose the SEC correspondence.\n\n10 I would like to touch on loss causation briefly. I\n\n11 know Your Honor's not --\n\n12 THE COURT: Focussed on it, but go ahead.\n\n13 MR. PARK: -- focussed on it, but this is not a -- this\n\n14 is completely unlike the cases that they cite. In the Ramos\n\n15 case, which was the one affirmed in a non-precedential opinion,\n\n16 it was a two-day recovery, recovered two days later. In the\n\n17 Tesla case, which they also cite, it was the next trading day\n\n18 after a 4 percent drop. And in Metzler it was three trading\n\n19 days. This is 11 trading days later.\n\n20 And we've also pleaded in the complaint the fact that\n\n21 the relevant index rose as the company stock price fell, and my\n\n22 understanding is that if you net out market and index returns on\n\n23 those, the two-day drop is 10.62 percent which of course is more\n\n24 than the 10 percent modest threshold discussed in some of the\n\n25 cases.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 40 of 43\n\n 40\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 And, again, they point to the company's price movement\n\n 2 in -- you know, in like the 30 days on each side. There's no\n\n 3 authority for why we should be looking at those periods exactly,\n\n 4 and that's because this is a highly fact-intensive question that\n\n 5 is litigated through experts in cases like this and again shows\n\n 6 how the defendants are really treating this as a motion for\n\n 7 summary judgment. Your Honor should be looking at the four\n\n 8 corners of the complaint with limited exceptions.\n\n 9 THE COURT: Well, but hold on. Let me stop you there,\n\n10 Mr. Park.\n\n11 The comment letters are what we're talking about. I\n\n12 mean, we're not talking about anything else. So I'm not sure\n\n13 what you mean when you say I shouldn't be considering anything\n\n14 else. All we've been talking about is what's in the filings and\n\n15 what's in the comment letters. And you're not disputing that I\n\n16 can take judicial notice of that, correct?\n\n17 MR. PARK: The company's SEC filings, yes. They also\n\n18 put in other companies' SEC filings.\n\n19 THE COURT: Well, in the comment letters you attached\n\n20 you're --\n\n21 MR. PARK: Correct.\n\n22 THE COURT: -- saying those are fine.\n\n23 MR. PARK: Correct. But --\n\n24 THE COURT: Hold on. I'm sorry.\n\n25 MR. PARK: Yes, Your Honor.\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 41 of 43\n\n 41\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: Is there something else that you are saying\n\n 2 that they are arguing that's based upon extrinsic documents that\n\n 3 I have not accepted that I should be ignoring?\n\n 4 MR. PARK: Well, they are making a highly\n\n 5 fact-intensive argument about loss compensation that looks at\n\n 6 the movement of the company's stock during a period that they've\n\n 7 selected.\n\n 8 THE COURT: So let me stop you there. So are you\n\n 9 saying that I can't consider the number of days for the recovery\n\n10 of the price?\n\n11 MR. PARK: I am saying, Your Honor, that they are\n\n12 making disputed interpretations of these extrinsic documents\n\n13 which is exactly what the Ninth Circuit warned about in Khoja.\n\n14 THE COURT: So what exactly -- in terms of loss\n\n15 causation, what exactly are you talking about? Because there's\n\n16 an argument about, right, the amount of the loss and percentages\n\n17 of that, right, and the recovery. There are two arguments\n\n18 there, one, this is a modest loss, and the other is that the\n\n19 price recovered anyway 11 days later.\n\n20 Are you saying I can't consider those facts and you're\n\n21 disputing those facts?\n\n22 MR. PARK: I'm saying that they're -- they're -- the\n\n23 facts of this case are highly different than the facts of the\n\n24 cases that they rely on, but they make a third loss caution\n\n25 argument --\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 42 of 43\n\n 42\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 THE COURT: Okay. But let me stop you there. I'm\n\n 2 talking about the facts that I just --\n\n 3 MR. PARK: Sure, yes.\n\n 4 THE COURT: -- referenced. Are you disputing those?\n\n 5 Are you saying I can't consider those?\n\n 6 MR. PARK: We're arguing -- I'm arguing, Your Honor,\n\n 7 that even if you do consider those, the loss causation is\n\n 8 sufficiently pleaded under the Ninth Circuit -- under Ninth\n\n 9 Circuit case law.\n\n10 THE COURT: All right. Thanks.\n\n11 MR. PARK: And one of those cases is the Gilead case\n\n12 which clearly says that this is a matter for proof at trial.\n\n13 And that -- that is what this -- this case should move to\n\n14 discovery so that we can determine the answers to all of these\n\n15 questions and resolve some of the disputed inferences that\n\n16 defendants are urging the Court to accept as fact.\n\n17 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n18 MR. PARK: Thank you.\n\n19 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Park.\n\n20 MR. PARK: Thank you.\n\n21 THE COURT: All right, counsel. I am going to take\n\n22 this matter under advisement. I will say this. What may happen\n\n23 if I do grant the motion to dismiss in this case, Mr. Ehrlich,\n\n24 what I will do and I have done in some of these cases is ask the\n\n25 defendants to draft an order for the Court to edit as it relates\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\fCase 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA Document 93 Filed 03/12/26 Page 43 of 43\n\n 43\n 2:23-cv-00470-RFB-DJA\n\n\n 1 to the ruling. So the important thing is if you get that -- I'd\n\n 2 like to get that draft turned around quickly if I were to grant\n\n 3 the motion and ask you to draft it so that we can get the case\n\n 4 resolved one way or another. Of course if I deny the motion, I\n\n 5 will draft that myself.\n\n 6 MR. EHRLICH: Understood, Your Honor. And if the Court\n\n 7 does in fact grant the motion, we will act expeditiously.\n\n 8 THE COURT: All right. Perfect. Thank you.\n\n 9 Thank you all for your time. We'll be adjourned on\n\n10 this case. Thank you.\n\n11 MR. STACHEL: Thank you.\n\n12 MR. EHRLICH: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n13 MR. PARK: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n14 (Whereupon the proceedings concluded at 1:23 p.m.)\n\n15 --oOo--\n\n16 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE\n\n17\n\n18 I, PATRICIA L. EAKER, Official Court Reporter, United\n\n19 States District Court, District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada,\n\n20 certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the\n\n21 record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.\n\n22\n\n23 Date: March 12, 2026.\n\n24 /s/ Patricia L. Eaker\n\n25 Patricia L. Eaker, RMR, CRR\n\n\n PATRICIA L. GANCI, RMR, CRR (702) 385-0670\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T06:57:34.969792-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"115011374586","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-12T09:21:03.184475-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-12T09:21:03.194137-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-12","time_filed":"08:40:38","entry_number":93,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":320,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417535/","id":456417535,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382779/","id":471382779,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/92/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.786587-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.752436-07:00","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":"92","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.766623-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.731868-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":92,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 2/13/2026 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D Smith; Pla Counsel: Jonathan Park, Andrew Muehlbauer and Brian England; Def Counsel: Matthew Stachel, Andrew Ehrlich, Daniel Sinnreich, and Gus Flangas for Kimberly Stein.; Court Reporter: P. Eaker; Time of Hearing: 12:31 - 1:22; Courtroom: 7CThe Court makes preliminary remarks and hears argument from counsel as to the 83 Motion to Dismiss the 69 Amended Complaint. The Court will take this matter under advisement. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 02/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417534/","id":456417534,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382778/","id":471382778,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/90/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.629494-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.622256-07:00","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":"90","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.603917-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.602646-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":90,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-20.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/20/2026. Before the Court is the 83 MOTION to Dismiss 69 Amended Complaint,, by Defendants Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc., Merrick Okamoto, Frederick G. Thiel, Simeon Salzman, Hugh J. Gallagher. Due to clerical error, this matter is POSTPONED in TIME ONLY as follows: The Motion Hearing is reset for 2/13/2026 at 12:15 PM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 01/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417533/","id":456417533,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382777/","id":471382777,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/89/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.563415-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.567965-07:00","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":"89","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:16.530239-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:51.546458-07:00","date_filed":"2026-01-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":89,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/20/2026. Before the Court for consideration is the 83 MOTION to Dismiss 69 Amended Complaint, by Defendants Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc., Merrick Okamoto, Frederick G. Thiel, Simeon Salzman, Hugh J. Gallagher. A Motion Hearing is set for 2/13/2026 at 10:45 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 01/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417532/","id":456417532,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382776/","id":471382776,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/72/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.485795-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.476156-07:00","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":"72","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.457637-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.455810-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":72,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-04.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 11-2. Counsel Rina Restaino to comply with completion and filing of the Verified Petition and Designation of Local Counsel. The form is available on the Court's website - www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is required to register for the court's electronic filing system at PACER www.pacer.gov to register Attorney. Verified Petition due by 4/18/2025. (no image attached) (WJ) (Entered: 04/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417531/","id":456417531,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382775/","id":471382775,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/71/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.431641-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.433100-07:00","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":"71","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.406205-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.406351-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":71,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-04.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 11-2. Counsel Brian England to comply with completion and filing of the Verified Petition and Designation of Local Counsel. The form is available on the Court's website - www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is required to register for the court's electronic filing system at PACER www.pacer.gov to register Attorney. Verified Petition due by 4/18/2025. (no image attached) (WJ) (Entered: 04/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417530/","id":456417530,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382774/","id":471382774,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/70/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.377422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.374774-07:00","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":"70","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.350132-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.350891-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":70,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 11-2. Counsel Brian Schall to comply with completion and filing of the Verified Petition and Designation of Local Counsel. The form is available on the Court's website - www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is required to register for the court's electronic filing system at PACER www.pacer.gov to register Attorney. Verified Petition due by 4/18/2025. (no image attached) (WJ) (Entered: 04/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417529/","id":456417529,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382773/","id":471382773,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/68/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.153070-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.167494-07:00","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":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:15.061794-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:50.144171-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 3/3/2025 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: Darci Smith; Pla Counsel: John Park and Andrew Muehlbauer; Def Counsel: Andrew Ehrlich, Kevin Madden and Kimberly Stein; Court Reporter: Patricia Ganci; Time of Hearing: 9:22 - 9:43; Courtroom: 7C The Court make preliminary remarks and hears from counsel as to the 43 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons articulated on the record and incorporated by reference herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 43 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The 42 Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court will not issue a separate written ruling. The instant minutes of proceedings shall serve as the final order of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint by April 2, 2025. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 03/28/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417528/","id":456417528,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382772/","id":471382772,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/58/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:14.113377-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:49.646743-07:00","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":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:14.016381-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:49.618044-07:00","date_filed":"2025-02-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-02-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/18/2025. Due to the Court's trial calendar, the unavailability of hearing settings for the next several weeks and the need to resolve the pending motions, the 57 Stipulation to Continue is DENIED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 02/18/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456417527/","id":456417527,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67123909/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471382771/","id":471382771,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67123909/56/moreno-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:13.821862-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:49.511954-07:00","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":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-09T23:19:13.745631-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-09T23:20:49.487544-07:00","date_filed":"2025-01-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/25/2025. Before the Court for consideration is the 43 MOTION to Dismiss 42 Amended Complaint by Defendants. Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2025 at 09:15 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 01/25/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=67123909&page_size=40"}