Baratta v. Binance Holdings LTD

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-22202
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 CHARLES BARATTA, JASON Case No. 2:25-cv-639-BJR RAPPAPORT, DONALD DOUTY, THOMAS 8 VIOLA, and HYACINTH AHURUONYE, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED Individually and on Behalf of All Others MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO Similarly Situated, 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

10 DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. D/B/A BINANCE, BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. 13 D/B/A BINANCE.US, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND CHANGPENG ZHAO, 14 Defendants. 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on a Stipulated Motion to Transfer This Action to the United 18 States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“Stipulated Motion to Transfer”), Dkt. 19 No. 12, by Plaintiffs Charles Baratta, Jason Rappaport, Donald Douty, Thomas Viola, and Hyacinth 20 Ahuruonye, and Defendant BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US (collectively, 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES 24 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 1 “Movants”).1 Having fully considered the materials and the relevant legal authorities, the Court 2 grants the Stipulated Motion to Transfer. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 This case is part of a series of putative class actions. See Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Martin v. 5 Binance Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-1264 (W.D. Wash. 2024) [hereinafter Martin]; Osterer v. BAM 6 Trading Servs. Inc., No. 23-cv-22083 (S.D. Fla. 2023) [hereinafter Osterer]; Kattula v. Coinbase 7 Glob., Inc., No. 22-cv-3250 (N.D. Ga. 2022). Plaintiffs in each of these related actions allege claims 8 arising from third-party hackers’ theft of cryptocurrency from Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange 9 and storage platform, and subsequent use of Binance.com, another cryptocurrency exchange and 10 storage platform, to untraceably exchange the stolen assets. 11 In the Martin action, this Court granted a motion by defendants Binance Holdings, LTD;

12 BAM Trading Services Inc.; and Changpeng Zhao to transfer the action to the Southern District of 13 Florida pursuant to the first-to-file rule.2 Martin Transfer Order, Dkt. No. 75. In light of the Martin 14 Transfer Order, Movants assert that the instant action should also be transferred to the Southern 15 District of Florida. Stip. Mot. to Transfer ¶¶ 4-5. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) requires the movants to show that (1) the 18 action “might have been brought” in the transferee district; and (2) the transfer would be “[f]or the 19 1 Defendants Binance Holdings, LTD and Changpeng Zhao have not appeared in this action 20 and are not parties to the Stipulated Motion to Transfer.

21 2 The first-to-file rule is a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity that allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss proceedings if a case with substantially similar issues and 22 parties was previously filed in another district court. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir.1982); Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 23 1991).

24 1 convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Authentify 2 Pat. Co., LLC v. StrikeForce Techs., Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 1135, 1148 (W.D. Wash. 2014). The 3 purpose of § 1404 is to prevent wasted time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, 4 and the public from unnecessary inconvenience and expense. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 5 616 (1964). 6 As to the first requirement, filings in the related cases are sufficient to establish that this 7 action “might have been brought” in the Southern District of Florida. See Osterer Compl. ¶¶ 14-52, 8 Dkt. No 1; Osterer Mot. for Leave to Amend at 1, Dkt. No. 62; 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Reyn’s Pasta 9 Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (providing that courts “may 10 take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record”). Therefore, the first 11 § 1404(a) requirement is satisfied.

12 Regarding the second requirement, Movants acknowledge that transfer of this action to the 13 Southern District of Florida “is appropriate and would serve the interests of judicial economy and 14 efficiency.” Stip. Mot. to Transfer ¶ 5. Additionally, this Court’s reasoning in Martin that transfer 15 of that action was necessary to promote efficiency and avoid duplicative litigation is equally 16 applicable here. See Martin Transfer Order at 8-9. Thus, transfer of this action to the Southern 17 District of Florida is in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the second § 1404(a) requirement is also 18 satisfied. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons: 21 1. Movants’ Stipulated Motion to Transfer This Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED. 22 2. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 23 Southern District of Florida.

24 1 DATED this 13th day of May 2025. 2 A 3 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 4 U .S. District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23