ERIC SCHIERMEYER, Derivatively and on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, BLOCKCHAIN GAME PARTNERS, INC. D/B/A GALA GAMES v. WRIGHT THURSTON and TRUE NORTH UNITED INVESTMENTS, LLC
Case No. 2:23-cv-589-HCN-DAO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH
October 9, 2023
Document 49; PageID.1010
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF
Plaintiff Eric Schiermeyer brings this shareholder-derivative action on behalf of Blockchain Game Partners, Inc., which does business as Gala Games, against Defendant Wright Thurston, asserting that Mr. Thurston stole millions of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency tokens from Gala Games.1 Mr. Schiermeyer requests a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (1) freezing certain digital assets that he says can be traced to the alleged theft, (2) ordering Mr. Thurston to provide an immediate accounting of those assets, and (3) permitting expedited discovery. See Dkt. No. 9. The court denies this request.2
I.
Mr. Schiermeyer and Mr. Thurston are the two directors, and large shareholders, of Gala Games, a company that administers a “blockchain-based gaming infrastructure.” Dkt. No. 14 ¶ 30. Among other things, Gala Games oversees distribution оf a cryptocurrency called “GALA tokens,” which players can trade with one another or use to make purchases within the company‘s games. See Dkt. No. 14 ¶ 30.
This dispute arose after Mr. Thurston moved 8.6 billion GALA tokens—allegedly worth approximately $130 million—out of digital wallets to whiсh both Mr. Schiermeyer and he had access, and into wallets to which only he had access. See Dkt. No.
Although Mr. Thurston moved the tokens in February 2021, Mr. Schiermeyer represents that he did not discover what had happened until that April. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 5. Mr. Schiermeyer then moved the remaining tokens into wallets to which Mr. Thurston did not have access and began tracking the tokens Mr. Thurston had taken. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶¶ 6–8.
More than a year later, in July 2022, Mr. Schiermeyer noticed that Mr. Thurston had begun moving the tokens out of his private wallets—an activity that allegedly continued for the next several months. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶¶ 8–15. Mr. Schiermeyer represents that he was concerned that Mr. Thurstоn was moving the tokens from private wallets (where he could track the tokens) to centralized exchanges (where he could not), and that Mr. Thurston might precipitately liquidate these tokens, causing the value of the remaining GALA tokens to plummet. See Dkt. No. 14 ¶¶ 68, 76. So, at the end of 2022, Mr. Schiеrmeyer began developing a new cryptocurrency token, GALA v2. His plan was to replace all of the original GALA tokens—except those Mr. Thurston had taken—with GALA v2, which would render worthless any of the tokens Mr. Thurston had taken but not yet sold. See Dkt. No. 14 ¶¶ 83–85.
Mr. Schiermeyer rolled out GALA v2 in May 2023. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 17. Although Mr. Thurston may have liquidated as many as 3.5 billion GALA tokens before the rollout, going forward he could no longer do anything with the remaining 5.1 billion now-outdated tokens he had taken. The parties then engaged in unsuccessful settlement negotiations until Mr. Schiermeyer filed this action at the end of August. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 18; Dkt. No. 2.
II.
Preliminary injunctive relief—whether a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction—“is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Such relief is “the exception rather than the rule” and will be granted only if “the movant‘s right to relief [is] clear and unequivocal.” Aposhian v. Barr, 958 F.3d 969, 978 (10th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). A party seeking such relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of the equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see also Johnson v. Bowles, No. 2:22-cv-573, 2022 WL 4109687, at *2 (D. Utah Sеpt. 8, 2022).
Among these requirements, “the single most important prerequisite” to preliminary injunctive relief is “a showing of probable irreparable harm.” First Western Capital Mgmt. Co. v. Malamed, 874 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). A party‘s harm is irreparable “when the court would be unable to grant an effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or difficult to ascertain.” Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001). Further,
Thus, before the court will even consider the merits of Mr. Schiermeyer‘s claims, the balance of the equities, or the public interеst, Mr. Schiermeyer “must first demonstrate” that, absent preliminary relief, he will “likely” suffer an irreparable injury: harm for which damages could not compensate. Malamed, 874 F.3d at 1141; accord IBC Advanced Techs., Inc. v. 6th Wave Innovations Corp., No. 2:19-cv-826, 2020 WL 491262, at *2 (D. Utah Jan. 30, 2020). This he has not done.
A.
At the outset, the court must consider Mr. Schiermeyer‘s request for preliminary relief against the backdrop of the nearly two-and-a-half-year delay between when he first discovered the alleged theft of the GALA tokens and when he finally moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
“As a general proposition, delay in seeking preliminary relief cuts against finding irrepаrable injury.” Kansas Health Care Ass‘n, Inc. v. Kansas Dep‘t of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 31 F.3d 1536, 1543–44 (10th Cir. 1994) (cleaned up); see also GTE Corp. v. Williams, 731 F.2d 676, 678 (10th Cir. 1984). To be sure, “delay is but one factor in the irreparable harm analysis.” RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710, 753 (10th Cir. 2016). Yet undue delay can still weigh heavily against a party seeking preliminary relief. After all, such relief is “generally grantеd under the theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiffs’ rights.” Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273, 276 (2d Cir. 1985). It follows that “[d]elay in seeking enforcement of those rights [ ] tends to indicate at least a reduced need for such drastic, speedy action.” Id. As the Tenth Circuit has put it, delay “undercuts thе sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests that there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.” GTE Corp., 731 F.2d at 678 (cleaned up); see also Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., 316 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1220–1222 (D. Utah 2004) (“Plaintiffs’ delay belies any irreparable injury to their rights.“).
Here, Mr. Schiermeyer‘s delay in requesting emergency injunctive relief undercuts his argument that he urgеntly needs that relief to avoid a likely, imminent, and irreparable harm. By his own admission, Mr. Schiermeyer discovered Mr. Thurston‘s theft in April 2021. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 5. Yet he did not seek preliminary relief from the courts until September 2023. See Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Schiermeyer could have involved the judiciary at any point during this two-аnd-a-half-year period but chose not to do so.
Mr. Schiermeyer argues that his delay in filing suit was justified because he “was hesitant to provoke Thurston in any way for concern that he might liquidate or dissipate the Stolen GALA immediately,” which he asserts could have “caus[ed] the Gala Games ecosystem to collapse.” Dkt. No. 36 at 19. But Mr. Schiermeyer‘s own
By Mr. Schiermeyer‘s own admission, “[w]ithin hours” of learning of the alleged theft in April 2021, he confronted Mr. Thurston, demanding that he “move the GALA back into the Company Savings Wallets.” Dkt. No. 36 at 18–19; see also Dkt. No. 40 at ¶¶ 6–7. Three months later, in July, Mr. Schiermeyer confronted Mr. Thurston again, sending him a text message stating: “you have 8billion gala that are the company reserves and some of it moved today. why?” Dkt. No. 36 at 19; acсord Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 11. And that December—still more than nine months before this suit was filed—Mr. Schiermeyer sent Mr. Thurston another text message, “demanding that he stop selling the Company GALA . . . and that he ‘send the funds to the company bank account.‘” Dkt. No. 36 at 19 (quoting Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 13). Two days later, Mr. Schiermeyer and his employeе, Jason Brink, “both messaged Thurston” yet again about the continuing sales and the alleged theft. Dkt. No. 36 at 18; accord Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 15; see also Dkt. No. 36 at 5. In short, the record does not support Mr. Schiermeyer‘s assertion that he waited two-and-a-half years to file suit because he was worried аbout provoking Mr. Thurston.
The record does, however, suggest a different reason for the delay: Mr. Schiermeyer did not bring this action promptly upon learning of Mr. Thurston‘s actions—either the initial transfer of the tokens to Mr. Thurston‘s wallets or even the subsequent movement of those tokens—beсause he was engaged in self-help. Shortly after discovering the alleged theft, Mr. Schiermeyer says that he “went into damage control mode.” Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 8. He moved the remaining GALA tokens to wallets under his control and then began tracking the 8.6 billion tokens that Mr. Thurston had taken. See Dkt. No. 40 ¶¶ 6–8. Finally, in May 2023, Mr. Sсhiermeyer rolled out a new version of the GALA tokens—GALA v2—that, in his own words, “stopped the bleeding,” see Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 18, because Mr. Thurston could no longer use any of the remaining 5.1 billion tokens that he had not already liquidated.
It thus appears that Mr. Schiermeyer delayed recourse to the сourts until the emergency was contained and the risk of further harm largely averted. Yet the “purpose” of preliminary relief “is not to remedy past harm but to protect plaintiffs from irreparable injury that will surely result without [its] issuance.” Schrier v. Univ. of Co., 427 F.3d 1253, 1267 (10th Cir. 2005); accord Crumbl LLC v. Dirty Dough LLC, No. 2:22-cv-318, 2023 WL 5180370, at *8 (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2023).
B.
Further, it is “well settled that simple economic loss usually does not, in and of itself, constitute irreparable harm,” because “such losses are compensable by money damages.” Heideman, 348 F.3d at 1189. In this case, not only has the alleged wrong already occurred, the asserted injury resulting from that wrong is an economic loss: Mr. Schiermeyer says his company‘s cryptocurrency tokens were taken, and he wants them back. Further, the asserted loss is limited, specific, and readily ascertainable. Given the rollout of GALA v2, Mr. Thurston cannot liquidate any more of the tokens that he took. So Mr. Schiermeyer‘s requested order would serve only to ensure that he can recоver the value of the 3.5 billion tokens that have already been liquidated—assuming, of course, that he prevails on the merits of his claims.
Even so, Mr. Schiermeyer invokes this court‘s statement in AAAG-California, LLC v. Kisana that “the taking of
True, a plaintiff‘s economic loss may still be irreparable if he can show that the defendant will not have the money to рay for the loss after trial. See Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass‘n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 355 (10th Cir. 1986). For instance, preliminary injunctive relief might be justified if a defendant were facing imminent insolvency and the injunction would preserve assets that the plaintiff could recover after а trial on the merits. See CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v. Cuomo, 394 F. App‘x 779, 781–82 (2d Cir. 2010).
Mr. Schiermeyer appears to argue along these lines, citing a smattering of district court opinions for the proposition that “cryptocurrency poses ‘a heightened risk of asset dissipation’ that justifies an order of injunctive relief.” Dkt. No. 36 at 20 (quoting Jacobo v. Doe, No. 1:22-cv-672, 2022 WL 2052637, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2022)); see also Gaponyuk v. Alferov, No. 2:23-cv-1317, 2023 WL 4670043, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2023); Heissenberg v. Doe, No. 21-CIV-80716, 2021 WL 8154531, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2021); Fed. Trade Comm‘n v. Dluca, No. 18-60379-CIV, 2018 WL 1830800, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb 28, 2018); report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1811904 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018).
But, to the extent Mr. Schiermeyer correctly characterizes these decisions, this court finds them unpersuasive. Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, a party seeking preliminary relief must show that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction“—not merely that such injury is a “possibility.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. It may well be the case that cryptocurrencies present heightened dissipation risks: For instance, “cryptocurrencies may rapidly become lost or untraceable,” Gaponyuk, 2023 WL 4670043, at *2, given “the speed and pоtential anonymity of cryptocurrency transactions.” Heissenberg, 2021 WL 8154531 at *2. Yet just because it is easy for a defendant to dissipate assets does not make it likely that he will do so.
More critically, even if the particular GALA tokens that Mr. Thurston took and allegedly liquidated are difficult to trace, that is of little consequence. As discussed,
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff‘s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of October, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
United States District Judge