Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Mar. 12, 2025

Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Pump.Fun

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:25-cv-00880
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
SecuritiesClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd., Judge McMahon received plaintiffs’ requests to delay case-management events and align lead-plaintiff deadlines; the excerpt shows no ruling.

Who this affects

The requested scheduling changes would affect the plaintiffs, defendants, proposed class members, and potential lead-plaintiff applicants in Aguilar and the related action, but the excerpt does not show that the court granted or denied the requests.

What happened

Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Pump.Fun is described as a proposed securities class action alleging that Baton sold or solicited the sale of unregistered memecoin or token securities through Pump.Fun. The plaintiffs also sued alleged control persons under the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs’ letter asked the court to postpone the April 10, 2025 conferences and related planning requirements in Aguilar and a related case until a later date. It also asked the court to move the related case’s deadline for seeking appointment as lead plaintiff from March 18, 2025, to April 2, 2025, so the two matters could proceed on a coordinated schedule.

The supplied text is a plaintiffs’ letter motion addressed to Judge Colleen McMahon, not a ruling. It does not show whether Judge McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise decided either request.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Pump.Fun · No. 1:25-cv-00880
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Mar. 12, 2025

Nature of the document

The supplied text is a letter motion from counsel for plaintiffs Kendall Carnahan and Diego Aguilar. It requests scheduling changes in Aguilar and a related securities class action. The excerpt does not include a court order or disposition of the requests.

Underlying allegations

The letter states that the complaints allege Baton Corporation Ltd. owns, controls, and operates the Pump.Fun website, through which it sold or solicited the sale of unregistered memecoin or token securities. The complaints assert claims under Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 against Baton, and Section 15 against Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler, and Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale as alleged control persons of Baton.

The letter distinguishes the proposed classes. The related action concerns purchasers of the $PNUT Token. Aguilar concerns purchasers of any unregistered securities that Pump.Fun sold or for which it solicited sales, and the letter states that the proposed Aguilar class includes the proposed class in the related action.

Requested scheduling changes

The plaintiffs asked the court to adjourn the April 10, 2025 conferences and the requirement to meet and confer and submit civil case-management plans in both matters until a later date. Counsel stated that service on defendants in foreign countries under the Hague Service Convention had not been completed, making it impossible at that time to confer with defendants about case-management plans. Counsel also relied on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, including its lead-plaintiff procedures and its stay of discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. The letter states that it was unknown whether any defendant would move to dismiss.

The plaintiffs separately asked the court to change the deadline for seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the related action from March 18, 2025, to April 2, 2025, matching the deadline in Aguilar. They stated that the change would allow potential lead plaintiffs to seek appointment and potentially move to consolidate the matters on the same schedule. They also stated that, if the request were granted, counsel would issue an updated notice to the proposed class in the related action.

Disposition

No disposition appears in the supplied text. The excerpt does not state that Judge Colleen McMahon granted, denied, or granted in part either request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.