BOWEN v. LI

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-20399-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

BENJAMIN ARTHUR BOWEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

XINGZHAO LI,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER ON NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGE DECLARATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Plaintiff’s Supplemental Damage Declaration, ECF No. [25] (“Notice”). Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Damage Declaration of Plaintiff Benjamin Arthur Bowen (“Declaration”) pursuant to the Court’s July 18, 2023 Order, ECF No. [23] (“July 18, 2023 Order”). Id. ¶¶ 1, 2. The July 18, 2023 Order found Defendant Xingzhao Li, also known as Aida Top, also known as Yang Lei Lei liable on Counts II, III, IV and V of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [14]. See ECF No. [14] at 12. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide evidence of Plaintiff’s damage calculation. Id. at 15. As this Court explained in the July 18, 2023 Order, where all the essential evidence to determine damages is on the paper record, an evidentiary hearing on damages is not required. See SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Rule 55(b)(2) speaks of evidentiary hearings in a permissive tone . . . . no such hearing is required where all essential evidence is already of record.”) (citations omitted); see also Evans v. Com. Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 13-61031- CIV, 2013 WL 12138555, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2013) (“[F]ollowing the entry of a default judgment, damages may be awarded ‘without a hearing [if the] amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation,’ so long as all essential evidence is a matter of record.” (citation omitted)). In the Declaration, Plaintiff states that he entered the Transaction Hashes for each cryptocurrency transaction that is detailed in the Amended Complaint into the website of the

platform Etherscan, https://etherscan.io/. ECF No. [25-1] ¶ 5. According to Plaintiff, Etherscan is “a popular blockchain explorer and analytics platform specifically designed for the Ethereum network.” Id. ¶ 6. According to Plaintiff, Etherscan uses historical cryptocurrency token price data, including data on USDT, to display the total value of a cryptocurrency transaction on the “day of transfer.” Id. According to Plaintiff, Etherscan returns the following values for the relevant USDT transactions in U.S. Dollars: Date & Time (UTC) Amount USD Value May 17, 2022, 10:28:29 PM 5,313 USDT $5,316.71 May 26, 2022, 8:21:37 PM 147,457 USDT $147,592.21

May 27, 2022, 7:21:02 PM 144,647 USDT $144,730.32 June 28, 2022, 10:55:51 PM 196,162 USDT $196,228.39 June 29, 2022, 11:24:30 PM 199,975 USDT $200,174.41 July 1, 2022, 7:43:04 AM 143,308 USDT $143,618.25 Aug. 30, 2022, 8:30:53 PM 194,861 USDT $194,682.35 Oct. 28, 2022, 4:06:59 PM 99,859 USDT $99,821.46 Aug. 30, 2022, 10:27:44 PM 499,987 USDT $499,204.90 Sept. 18, 2022, 3:58:23 AM 194,861 USDT $195,199.31

Sept. 19, 2022, 5:35:11 AM 189,990 USDT $189,962.66 Oct. 1, 2022, 7:23:47 PM 190,000 USDT $190,049.20 Case No. 23-cv-20399-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Oct. 2, 2022, 12:39:11 AM 8,990 USDT $8,989.08

ECF No. [25-1] § 4 tbls. Plaintiff contends the value of the USDT that he was able to withdraw from Foundrypro is as follows: 1. June 19, 2022 Transaction Hash: Oxbe107effe2c62c9cbd90d6al233da6068 13c51d72f43 ffe84bf9261b7d71ala7 Withdrawal Amount: 12,028.5 USDT USD Value: $12,032.26 2. August 1,2022 Transaction Hash: 0x3b1594b3268753485 146250d308 1 d2c2db3dc04ecec4427el9630a0ca3eba4 34 Withdrawal Amount: 9,900 USDT USD Value: $9,925.64.

' The Transaction Hashes for each transaction are as shown in the Declaration and below:

Sent to Wallet Address: □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ oe

[tana ner emmanomemmuaaae See id.

Case No. 23-cv-20399-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Id. 8. Subtracting the June 19, 2022 and August 1, 2022 withdrawals, Plaintiff calculates his damages as $2,193,611.35. The Court’s calculation matches the Plaintiffs request.? On Plaintiff's representation that Etherscan accurately converts the spot price of the particular cryptocurrency transaction in U.S. Dollars, the Court finds the damages calculation is supported by the evidence on the record. Based on the foregoing, and the Court’s finding that Plaintiff is entitled to default final judgment on Counts Il, II, [IV and V of the Amended Complaint, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff is entitled to $2,193,611.35 in damages. The Court will enter a Final Judgment consistent with this Order and the June 18, 2023 Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 26, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record

? The Court performed the following calculation: $5,316.71 + $147,592.21 + $144,730.32 + $196,228.39 + $200,174.41 + $143,618.25 + $99,821.46 + $499,204.9 + $195,199.31 + $189,962.66 + $190,049.20 + $8,989.08 + $194,682.35 — $12,032.26 — $9,925.64 = $2,193,611.35.