Gerardo Aceves, et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al.

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : GERARDO ACEVES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 1486 (JPC) : COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., et al., : ORDER : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: On January 8, 2026, the Court held a conference in this case to discuss a premotion letter filed by Defendants on December 11, 2025, see Dkt. 56, for leave to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. See Jan. 8, 2026 Docket Entry. Plaintiffs indicated at the conference that they would amend the Complaint to address Defendants’ premotion letter, and on March 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 68. Then, on April 6, 2026, Defendants filed a letter indicating that they intend to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint by April 27, 2026, and summarizing the anticipated bases for such motion. Dkt. 70. Despite the amendments to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants’ April 6, 2026 letter seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for reasons very similar to those identified in Defendants’ December 11, 2025 letter seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Compare Dkt. 70, with Dkt. 56. Without expressing any views regarding the merits of Defendants’ anticipated motion, it is the Court’s view that it is in the interests of justice to allow Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend their Complaint to provide more detailed factual allegations which might address points raised in Defendants’ April 6, 2026 letter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (providing that courts should grant leave to amend “when justice so requires”). If Plaintiffs decide not to file a Second Amended Complaint, or file an Amended Complaint which does not address the purported deficiencies identified in Defendants’ April 6, 2026 letter, the Court will rule on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and any dismissal may be with prejudice. See In re Eaton Vance Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 403 F. Supp. 2d 310, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (‘[A] District Court has discretion to deny a plaintiff leave to amend where the plaintiff was put on notice as to the deficiencies in his complaint, but chose not to resolve them.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint by May 1, 2026. The Court extends Defendants’ deadline to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint—or, if Plaintiffs choose to amend, the Second Amended Complaint—until June 8, 2026. Plaintiffs’ opposition to any motion to dismiss is due July 20, 2026, and Defendants’ reply in support of their motion is due August 10, 2026. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2026 Whe, New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge