Aceves v. Global
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Aceves v. Coinbase, Judge Cronan ordered a conference and briefing about Coinbase’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel, who were ordered to attend the conference and follow the briefing deadlines.
What happened
In Gerardo Aceves, et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., the court addressed the next steps in the case rather than deciding the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court ordered counsel for all parties to attend a December 18, 2025 conference. It directed the defendants to explain their anticipated motion to dismiss, compare their arguments with an earlier decision involving Coinbase, and explain why the court should decide any arguments unique to this case immediately.
Judge John P. Cronan also set deadlines for the defendants’ letter and any responses. The order did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Aceves v. Global · No. 1:25-cv-01486
- John Cronan
- Dec. 5, 2025
Order and background
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear for a conference on December 18, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., to discuss the next steps in the case. The conference was scheduled for Courtroom 12D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York, New York.
Required submissions
The court directed the defendants to file, by December 11, 2025, a letter of no more than five pages addressing three subjects: the arguments they planned to make in their anticipated motion to dismiss; whether those arguments differed from arguments addressed in a prior decision denying Coinbase’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; and why the court should not decide arguments unique to this case immediately while postponing arguments also raised in that earlier matter.
Any responses to the defendants’ letter were due by December 15, 2025, and could not exceed three pages.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the conference and the specified briefing. The order did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.