746 F.Supp.3d 1360
S.D. Fla.
2024
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Plaintiffs, noncitizens Maribel Xirum, Javier Jaimes, and Baijebo Toe, were detained at the Clay County Jail pursuant to a service agreement between ICE and Clay County, Indiana, in 2021 and 2022 [lines="54-55"].
  2. On April 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking to enjoin the housing of detainees at the Jail and prevent ICE from making federal detention payments to Clay County [lines="56-58"].
  3. The Court allowed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint after partially granting and denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss [lines="62-68"].
  4. The Court determined that the named Plaintiffs could represent a class of similarly situated persons despite being transferred or released from the Jail [lines="139-155"].
  5. The underlying issue involved the certification of the Jail as compliant with Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) by ICE [lines="40-42"].

Issues

  1. Whether the conditions at the Clay County Jail justify a class-wide injunctive relief due to ICE's certification of the Jail as PBNDS-compliant [lines="52"].
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs' claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) [lines="82-84"].

Holdings

  1. The Court granted class certification, finding that the Plaintiffs showed sufficient commonality and typicality among class members, despite challenges from the Defendants [lines="35-38"], [lines="408-412"].
  2. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs' requested class-wide injunctive relief against ICE was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), allowing only individual claims for such relief [lines="189-192"], [lines="278-279"].

OPINION

DANIEL HARPER, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SHAQUILLE O‘NEAL, ASTRALS LLC, ASTRALS HOLDING, LLC, and ASTRALS OPERATIONS LLC

Case Number: 23-21912-CIV-MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division

August 16, 2024

FEDERICO A. MORENO

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants, who have since retained new counsel, supplemented the original Motion to Dismiss. In the supplement, Defendants argue that Supreme Court Decision requires allegations demonstrating that the transactions in Galaxy tokens were domestic. In determining whether a transaction is domestic, courts apply a “transactional test” that looks to “whether the purchase or sale [of the security] is made in the United States, or involves a security listed on a domestic exchange[.]” (citing (alterations added)); see also (applying ). The Supreme Court has not further defined “what it means for a purchase or sale to occur in the United States.” (alteration added). The Eleventh Circuit has noted it is sufficient to allege that a transaction was closed, such that “title to the shares was transferred” domestically, (footnote call number omitted)). There is no requirement that a plaintiff be physically present in the United States for a transaction to be consummated in the United States, as Section 10(b) is more concerned with the location of the transaction rather than the location of the parties to it. See ; see also .

The Court‘s analysis hinges on the parties’ Simple Agreement for Future Tokens. Both parties cite to Second Circuit case . There, the panel stated that “a securities transaction is domestic when the parties incur irrevocable liability to carry out the transaction within the United States or when title is passed within the United States.” Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to show that the transaction was domestic because the terms within the Agreement include multiple contingencies that had to be satisfied, including delivery of the tokens only if there is a network launch. A network launch, as defined by the Agreement, is a bona fide transaction or series of transactions, pursuant to which [Astrals LLC] will sell the tokens to the general public in a publicized product launch. So, Defendants argue that because Defendant Astrals LLC could have revoked any contingent obligation, it did not incur irrevocable liability. However, Defendants do not specify whether a network launch happened or not. Without that information, the Court is unpersuaded by the argument that Defendant Astrals could have revoked its obligation. The Agreement is signed by both Brian Bayati, Managing Member of Astrals LLC and Defendant Divecha. Further, the top of the Agreement certifies that in exchange for $25,000 dollars, Astrals issued the right to certain units of the Galaxy token. Simply, Defendants were committed to issue or delivery the security. See . Plaintiffs, through the Agreement, has sufficiently pled facts concerning “the formation of contracts to buy or sell securities, the placement of purchase orders, the passing of titles, or exchanges of money, within the United States” (Astrals LLC‘s agreement is governed by the laws of Nevada). See . Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ supplement to the Motion to Dismiss.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is DENIED consistent with this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16 of August 2024.

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Read the detailed case summary