Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Hodges v. Harrison

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

February 8, 2019, Decided; February 8, 2019, Entered on Docket

Case No. 17-81370-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

Opinion

 [*1345]  ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Daniel Harrison filed by Plaintiffs on December 28, 2018. (DE 54). Defendant Harrison is proceeding pro se in this matter. On January 4, 2019, I entered an Order with instructions to Defendant Harrison regarding the operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and advising him of the consequences of his failure to properly respond (DE 57). Thereafter, on January 22, 2019, Harrison filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary [**2]  Judgment (DE 59), and a "Motion to Order Immediate and Urgent Subpoena of Potentially Connected Parties" (DE 60). Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on January 29, 2019 (DE 62), and Response in Opposition to Harrison's motion for subpoena on February 6, 2019 (DE 63).

I. OVERVIEW

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for damages and equitable relief against Defendants Monkey Capital, LLC, Monkey Capital, Inc., and Daniel Harrison. (DE 28 or "Amended Complaint"). At the heart of Plaintiffs' lawsuit are allegations that Plaintiffs contributed cryptocurrency worth millions of dollars in advance of a scheduled Initial Coin Offering (ICO) and supposed launch of a private cryptocurrency exchange and decentralized hedge fund (the "Monkey Capital Market"). Plaintiffs state that the ICO never occurred, the status of the development of the Monkey Capital Market is unknown, and that Defendants unlawfully pocketed investor money. On August 14, 2018, I entered final default judgment against Defendants Monkey Capital LLC  [*1346]  and Monkey Capital Inc. (DE 44). On August 27, 2018, after an evidentiary hearing, I awarded damages. (DE 50). Harrison is the [**3]  only remaining Defendant, and Plaintiffs' now seek summary judgment against him as to all claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

372 F. Supp. 3d 1342 *; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61997 **; 2019 WL 1468560

ANDREW HODGES, an individual; VLADIMIR COOD, an individual; GAUTAM DESAI, an individual; JODY POWELL, an individual; JEFFREY HEBERLING, an individual; SHAMMI NABUKUMAR, an individual; and ANTHONY SAJEWICZ, an individual; Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL HARRISON, Defendant.

Prior History: Hodges v. Capital, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228089 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2018)

CORE TERMS

investors, Coin, summary judgment motion, damages, registration, cryptocurrency, Securities Act, enterprise, offerings, unfair, investment contract, summary judgment, deceptive, entities, bitcoin, genuine, default judgment, undisputed, profits, moving party, representations, unregistered, conversion, rescission, practices, solicited, commerce, register, movant