Hurlock v. Labs
Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kelsier Labs, LLC, d/b/a Kelsier Ventures, Hayden Mark Davis, Gideon Davis, Charles Thomas Davis, Meteora, an unincorporated association, and Benjamin Chow
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hurlock v. Kelsier Labs, Judge Rochon granted Dynamic Labs intervention and denied plaintiffs’ alternative-service motion without prejudice pending dismissal motions.
Dynamic Labs may participate in the case and formally seek dismissal; Plaintiffs must await resolution of the defendants’ dismissal motions before renewing, if necessary, their request for alternative service on Meteora; and the deadline to serve Meteora was extended.
What happened
In Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta v. Kelsier Labs, LLC, Plaintiffs asked to serve Meteora through an alternative method. Nonparty Dynamic Labs opposed that request, arguing that Meteora is software and cannot sue or be sued, and sought to join the case.
The court found that Dynamic Labs met the requirements to intervene because the requested relief could affect its programs, operations, fees, accounts, and property interests. The court also found that the existing defendants might not adequately present Dynamic Labs’s distinct arguments about Meteora’s legal capacity.
Judge Rochon granted Dynamic Labs’s motion to intervene and directed it to file its proposed dismissal motion formally. The court denied Plaintiffs’ alternative-service motion without prejudice, extended the deadline to serve Meteora, and directed that the motion could be renewed if necessary after the defendants’ dismissal motions are resolved.
The detailed version
- Hurlock v. Labs · No. 1:25-cv-03891
- Rochon
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) for permission to serve Defendant Meteora by an alternative method. Plaintiffs described Meteora as an unincorporated entity that could be sued. Nonparty Dynamic Labs opposed the request, arguing that Meteora is software and lacks the legal capacity to sue or be sued. Dynamic Labs also asked to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) and to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on that and other grounds.
Intervention
The court applied the four requirements for intervention as of right: a timely application, an interest in the action, a risk that the interest could be impaired by the case’s resolution, and inadequate protection of that interest by the existing parties. The parties agreed that Dynamic Labs’s motion was timely, and the court found that the other requirements were satisfied.
The court found that Dynamic Labs had a direct and legally protectable interest because Plaintiffs alleged that Dynamic Labs shared control over Meteora and its programs and automatically received certain transaction fees from Meteora liquidity pools. Plaintiffs sought restitution that appeared to include fees and commissions distributed to Dynamic Labs, as well as appointment of a receiver with authority affecting Meteora’s programs and the collection and distribution of protocol fees.
The court also found that Dynamic Labs’s interests were not adequately protected by the existing defendants. According to the court, no other defendant with undisputed legal capacity was alleged to control Meteora’s programs or accounts, and no other defendant had raised Dynamic Labs’s distinct arguments about Meteora’s capacity to be sued or had the same knowledge and incentive to raise them.
Ruling
The court granted Dynamic Labs’s motion to intervene as a matter of right. It directed Dynamic Labs to refile its proposed motion to dismiss and supporting papers as a formal motion.
Because that motion raised issues bearing on whether Meteora needed to be served, the court extended the deadline for serving Meteora and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service without prejudice to renewal, if necessary, after the court resolves the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court stated that this approach would narrow the legal issues and would not affect discovery because discovery was stayed. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at Docket 128 and Docket 180.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.