A recent ruling has left former clients of Voyager Digital in the lurch, as a US federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against entrepreneur Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks. The judge stated that the court lacked the authority to handle the case concerning the claims made by the plaintiffs.
The decision, finalized at the close of December, completely nullified the lawsuit as it challenged the jurisdictional basis for the case to be heard in Florida.
Judge Dismisses Case Due to Jurisdiction Issues
In the court’s assessment, Judge Roy K. Altman determined that neither Mark Cuban nor the Mavericks engaged in business operations within Florida that would grant the Miami court jurisdiction over them.
The judgment came after detailed examinations of the jurisdictional claims and numerous revisions of the complaint. The judge noted that none of these efforts successfully established a legal connection to Florida, leading the defense to celebrate a significant victory.
The origin of the lawsuit dates back to 2022 when Voyager Digital succumbed to financial difficulties leading to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The downturn in the market prompted a surge in lawsuits from users claiming they lost access to their funds and were deceived by the company’s communications. In the restitution discussions, it was reported that the company had approximately $1.3 billion of customer crypto assets entwined.
Advertising and Incentives: The $100 Fan Initiative
Earlier discussions have highlighted a promotional campaign from 2021 where Cuban and the Mavericks collaborated with Voyager, presenting fans with benefits associated with deposits and cryptocurrency trading.
The plaintiffs contended that the promotional efforts and Cuban’s endorsement influenced customers to engage with the Voyager platform. While several parties in similar lawsuits related to Voyager have reached settlements, Cuban and the Mavericks affirmed their intention to contest these allegations.
Legal analysts suggest that this case exemplifies the challenges of suing high-profile individuals in jurisdictions far removed from their operational bases. Courts are increasingly requiring robust proofs that a defendant has purposefully engaged with a state before permitting lawsuits in local courts. The dismissal in this situation does not evaluate the veracity of the promotional claims but instead centers on the question of proper jurisdiction.
Future Options for Plaintiffs Amid Wider Legal Context
Currently, there is no indication of an immediate alternative filing by the plaintiffs in another court. Since the case was dismissed based on jurisdictional issues, plaintiffs are barred from continuing in that Florida court but retain the option to file claims in different jurisdictions if desired.
Featured image from MediaNews Group via Getty Images, chart from TradingView
