daollc.org

Decisions

Court and regulator decisions involving DAOs, newest first. Each is summarized from its primary docket, with the most recent procedural status recorded here and the date it was last verified.

Samuels v. Lido DAO

Stayed pending appeal. · Last verified

Court or regulator
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Docket
3:23-cv-06492
Date
Docket entry
Docket No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 115 (Order re Motions to Dismiss), pp. 1-2

alleged that Lido DAO is not immune from suit. Specifically, he has alleged that Lido is a general partnership within the meaning of California law.

Docket No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 115 (Order re Motions to Dismiss), pp. 1-2, Samuels v. Lido DAO, No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 115 (Order re Motions to Dismiss)

At the pleading stage, on the motions to dismiss, the court held that Samuels pled sufficient facts to allow the reasonable inference that a Lido DAO general partnership was formed.

Samuels has therefore pled sufficient facts to allow the reasonable inference that a Lido DAO general partnership was formed.

Docket No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 115 (Order re Motions to Dismiss), p. 11, Samuels v. Lido DAO, No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 115 (Order re Motions to Dismiss)

Docket text behind this status

  1. While the case is stayed pending appeal

    Docket No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 201, Samuels v. Lido DAO, No. 3:23-cv-06492, Docket Entry 201 ("While the case is stayed pending appeal, the parties are ordered to file a joint status report every 120 days")

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ooki DAO

Judgment entered. · Last verified

Court or regulator
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Docket
3:22-cv-05416
Date
Docket entry
Docket No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE, AND HEREBY IS, entered in favor of plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and against defendant Ooki DAO in accordance with the prayer for relief in the complaint, and in the amount of $643,542.

Docket No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment), CFTC v. Ooki DAO, No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment)

Pursuant to the court's order on the motion for default judgment, judgment was entered in favor of the CFTC and against Ooki DAO in the amount of $643,542, together with a permanent injunction against Ooki DAO.

Pursuant to this Court's Order on Motion for Default Judgment, dated June 8, 2023, [Dkt. No. 76], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE, AND HEREBY IS, entered in favor of plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and against defendant Ooki DAO in accordance with the prayer for relief in the complaint, and in the amount of $643,542. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following permanent injunction is entered against Ooki DAO

Docket No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment), p. 1, CFTC v. Ooki DAO, No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment)

Docket text behind this status

  1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE, AND HEREBY IS, entered in favor of plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and against defendant Ooki DAO in accordance with the prayer for relief in the complaint, and in the amount of $643,542.

    Docket No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment), CFTC v. Ooki DAO, No. 3:22-cv-05416, Docket Entry 77 (Judgment)

Sarcuni v. bZx DAO

Dismissed with prejudice. · Last verified

Court or regulator
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Docket
3:22-cv-00618
Date
Docket entry
Docket No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 49 (Order on Motions to Dismiss), p. 17, lines 26-28

Accepting the allegations in the FAC as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to allege that a general partnership existed among the BZRX tokenholders.

Docket No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 49 (Order on Motions to Dismiss), p. 17, lines 26-28, Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 49 (Order on Motions to Dismiss)

At the pleading stage, accepting the allegations in the first amended complaint as true, the court found that plaintiffs stated facts sufficient to allege that a general partnership existed among the BZRX tokenholders.

Accepting the allegations in the FAC as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to allege that a general partnership existed among the BZRX tokenholders.

Docket No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 49 (Order on Motions to Dismiss), p. 17, lines 26-28, Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 49 (Order on Motions to Dismiss)

Docket text behind this status

  1. DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety

    Docket No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 79 (Order of Dismissal), Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, No. 3:22-cv-00618, Docket Entry 79 (Order of Dismissal)