Opinion
23-cv-06492-VC
06-27-2024
ANDREW SAMUELS, Plaintiff, v. LIDO DAO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AND DENYING ENTRY OF DEFAULT
RE: DKT. NO. 65
VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Samuels's Motion for Alternative Service is granted, and his Motion for Entry of Default is denied. Although Samuels contends that service on AH Capital Management was proper for effectuating service against Lido DAO based on Samuels's allegations that AH Capital Management is a general partner of Lido DAO, the issue of whether Lido DAO is a general partnership and whether AH Capital Management is a general partner are merits questions that have yet to be adjudicated. But Samuels also attempted to serve Lido DAO in three alternative ways: (1) he mailed a copy of the complaint and summons to the address associated with the entity that runs Lido DAO's user interface, (2) he sent the complaint and summons to the DAO's general counsel via email and social media, and (3) he posted the complaint and summons on Lido DAO's Governance Forum. As another court in this district has already held, service on a DAO by posting to the Governance Forum is reasonably likely to put the DAO on notice of ongoing litigation. See Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ooki DAO, No. 22-cv-05416, 2022 WL 17822445, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022). And these three methods of service combined are reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the lawsuit to Lido DAO. Therefore, service is deemed sufficient as of the date of the filing of this order.
Lido DAO has 14 days to respond to the First Amended Complaint. Assuming Lido DAO responds with a motion to dismiss, the opposition is due 14 days after the motion and the reply is due 7 days after that. A hearing will be scheduled for August 15, 2024. Samuels is directed to serve this order and the First Amended Complaint in the same manner that he served the original complaint, and to file a proof of service by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.