Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/385729594/Tezos-doc
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:53:04+00:00

Document:
28 without leave to amend; and the motion by Draper is granted with leave to amend.
4 solution” to the shortcomings of predominant digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.
9 Technology Officer, and the couple’s home as its corporate headquarters.
23 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
represent Tezos alluded to “our ICO” on the website bitcointalk.org. Compl. ¶ 40.
27 opposition to this motion, Anvari appears to concede the point.
15 in either Bitcoin or Ethereum, could not retract donations once recorded on the blockchain ledger.
20 mandate, including development of the websites5 and applications underlying the eventual ICO.
27 hosted on an Arizona server.
3 foundation has no control or confidentiality in its own communications.” See Compl. ¶ 48.
7 Mr. Breitman posted an apology for certain malfunctions, assuring commentators “[w]e’re . . .
22 through Bitcoin Suisse, or to have been ignorant of the purportedly governing Contribution Terms.
billion. At current prices, that figure rests nearer to $700 million.
26 contribution procedure . . . is considered to be executed in Alderney.” Contribution Terms ¶ 46.
27 courts of Zug, Switzerland.” Id. ¶ 48.
3 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Exchange Act”).
8 Section 15 “control person” liability on the facts alleged.
14 the federal court sits. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.
20 play and substantial justice” (specific jurisdiction). See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
21 310, 316 (1946) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
1 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981)).
16 quotation marks omitted) (citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 509).
25 951 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
4 Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)) (internal quotations marks omitted).
15 should be granted unless “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Gompper v.
16 VISX, Inc., 289 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
5 reasonable.” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985)).
10 resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
16 is likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
22 offered no adequate response to this declaration.
10 suspect Bitcoin Suisse will fail to honor it.
13 be dismissed without leave to amend.
17 that the tezos.com website being (1) hosted on an Arizona server, (2) freely accessible by U.S.
19 personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir.
22 to demonstrate that the defendant directed his activity towards the forum”); see also Boschetto v.
25 trustee, agent, or depository who is joined purely as a means of facilitating collection.” SEC v.
Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
2 item” legally insufficient under a “sliding scale” approach to online purposeful direction analysis).
16 so, and the results reflected those efforts.
24 Anvari has made a sufficient prima facie personal jurisdictional showing to survive dismissal.
8 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir. 2016) (summarizing Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 134 S.Ct.
13 about the parties’ private interests.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
19 enough, however, to require dismissal or transfer at this juncture.
26 notice of the terms of the contract.” Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir.
9 put on inquiry notice.
14 case might be different”); see also Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir.
19 an inference that Anvari is not bound by the forum-selection clause.
every page . . . even in close proximity . . . to relevant buttons users must click on”).
27 notice of the terms.
10 renewing the motion at a later date should doing so be warranted by facts unearthed in discovery.
19 company’s invocation of that doctrine must therefore be rejected.
5 Foundation’s “contribution software” resides.
8 of this action, the Contribution Terms are, to reiterate, of little significance at this juncture.
11 recorded “on the blockchain,” actually take place?
25 at 68 (2d Cir. 2012)).
2 application of the Exchange Act does not offend the mandate of Morrison.
14 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Maine State Ret. Sys.
17 defendant” was sufficiently pled).
24 could Anvari have been solicited by a man of whom he was utterly unaware?
4 statutory seller claim against Draper is not plausible.
11 in the Tezos universe, reducing its own role to that of a common service provider.
20 withstands DLS’ 12(b)(6) motion.
4 another’s solicitation efforts.” Id. at 651 n.27.
20 or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise . . . controls any person liable” under Section 12.
1 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
8 “participation in the [company’s] daily affairs”); SEC v. Todd, 642 F.3d 1207, 1223 (9th Cir.
12 expansion of secondary liability under the securities law.” Paracor Finance, 96 F.3d at 1162.
Draper’s Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 117 at 9, with Pl.’s Opp’n to Draper’s Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 134 at 10.
27 over the Tezos project, it need not be resolved here.
4 allege that Draper is liable as a control person. 17 C.F.R. § 230.405.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 230