Raanan v. Binance Holdings Limited

Nature of the filing

The provided text is a letter from the plaintiffs’ attorneys requesting a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion for jurisdictional discovery. It also includes a scheduling direction signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. The text does not contain a decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, a final ruling on personal jurisdiction, or a merits ruling on the plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional arguments

The plaintiffs argued that they had made an initial showing supporting personal jurisdiction over Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao. They relied on New York’s long-arm statute, which can permit jurisdiction based on business conducted in New York, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), which can provide a basis for jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law when a defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any individual state.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants solicited and serviced New York customers, including New York-based “VIP” market-maker firms, and that the claims arose from those activities. They also argued that the defendants’ contacts with New York and other states required further factual development. The requested discovery would concern the defendants’ New York activities and their contacts with all fifty states.

Defendants’ position as described in the filing

The plaintiffs’ letter states that the defendants argued that the claims did not arise from New York activities because the New York customers allegedly did not fund the attacks at issue and the defendants did not operate from New York. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs could not rely on both New York jurisdiction and Rule 4(k)(2). The text identifies these positions as arguments from the defendants’ briefing; it does not provide a ruling resolving them.

Court action and disposition

The court directed that any opposition to the requested relief be filed no later than August 9, 2024, and any reply no later than August 13, 2024. The scheduling direction was signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses on August 8, 2024. Judge Koeltl’s court therefore set briefing deadlines; it did not grant or deny the anticipated jurisdictional-discovery motion in the provided text and did not decide personal jurisdiction or the underlying claims.