Samuels v. Lido DAO
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-06492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Samuels v. Lido DAO, Judge Chhabria granted alternative service, denied entry of default, and deemed service sufficient.
Andrew Samuels and Lido DAO. The order approved alternative service, denied entry of default, deemed service sufficient, and gave Lido DAO 14 days to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
What happened
In Samuels v. Lido DAO, Andrew Samuels asked the court to approve alternative ways of serving Lido DAO and to enter default against it. He argued that service on AH Capital Management also served Lido DAO because AH Capital Management was allegedly Lido DAO’s general partner.
The court said whether Lido DAO is a general partnership and whether AH Capital Management is its general partner are unresolved merits questions. But Samuels also mailed the complaint and summons to an address connected to Lido DAO’s user-interface operator, sent them to Lido DAO’s general counsel by email and social media, and posted them on Lido DAO’s Governance Forum. The court found that these combined methods were reasonably likely to give Lido DAO actual notice.
The court granted Samuels’s motion for alternative service and denied his motion for entry of default. Judge Vince Chhabria deemed service sufficient as of June 27, 2024, and gave Lido DAO 14 days to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
The detailed version
- Samuels v. Lido DAO · No. 3:23-cv-06492
- Vince Chhabria
- June 27, 2024
Background
Andrew Samuels moved for permission to use alternative methods to serve Lido DAO and separately moved for entry of default. Samuels argued that serving AH Capital Management was sufficient to serve Lido DAO because, according to his allegations, AH Capital Management is a general partner of Lido DAO.
Samuels also attempted three other forms of service: mailing the complaint and summons to the address associated with the entity that operates Lido DAO’s user interface; sending the documents to Lido DAO’s general counsel by email and social media; and posting the documents on Lido DAO’s Governance Forum.
Court’s Analysis
The court declined to treat service on AH Capital Management as established service on Lido DAO at this stage. It said that whether Lido DAO is a general partnership and whether AH Capital Management is a general partner are merits questions that had not yet been decided.
The court relied on the combined effect of the three other service methods. It noted that another court in the Northern District of California had held that posting on a decentralized autonomous organization’s Governance Forum was reasonably likely to notify the organization of litigation. The court found that the three methods together were reasonably calculated to give Lido DAO actual notice.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted Samuels’s Motion for Alternative Service and denied his Motion for Entry of Default. It deemed service sufficient as of June 27, 2024. Lido DAO was given 14 days to respond to the First Amended Complaint. The court also directed Samuels to serve the order and the First Amended Complaint in the same manner he had served the original complaint and to file proof of service by 5:00 p.m. the following day. If Lido DAO responded with a motion to dismiss, the court set deadlines for the opposition and reply and stated that a hearing would be scheduled for August 15, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.