OPELAND LAW AYLOR-COPELAND (284743) 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA. 92101 Telephone: 619/400-4944 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP LUCAS F. OLTS (234843) SARA B. POLYCHRON (244685) BRIAN E. COCHRAN (286202) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Catforna, 08/03/2018 Clerk of the Court Doputy Cork SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 206 COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 3.550] TEZOS ICO CASES Included actions: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-17-562144 Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd., et al. v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Baker v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al.,) ) ) ) ) ) ) IscIvo20as } ) No. CIC-18-004978 Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4978 OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER, ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER 457799110 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 INTRODUCTION....... I, FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. A. The Baker Action...acscnsnetasee B. The Copycat Federal Actions C. The Copycat Trigon Action... I ARGUMENT.. A. Under the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction, the Trigon Action Should Be Abated in Deference to the Earlier Filed Baker Action... B. Petitioners Cannot Avoid the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction ‘Through Their Petition for Coordination... oo C. Ifthe Actions Are Coordinated, Proceedings Should Move Forward in San Francisco and the Trigon Action Should Be Stayed ....00n0 1. The Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel .. 2. The Relative Development of the Actions and the Work Product of Counsel 3. The Efficient Use of Judicial Facilities and Resources 4. Any Other Relevant Matter... Iv: 5 {CONCLUSIONS etree See -i- ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER 45779911], INTRODUCTION 2 Trigon Trading Party Ltd. (“Trigon”) and Bruce MacDonald’s (“MacDonald”) (collectively, 3 || “Petitioners”) Petition for Coordination should be denied. Petitioners filed their case six months after 4 || plaintiff Andrew Baker filed Baker v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al., No. CGC-17-362144 5 || (Baker Action”), on behalf of all investors who purchased Tezos tokens (“XTZ” ot “Tezzies”) from 6 || defendants during the Tezos initial coin offering (“Tezos ICO”). Petitioners’ copycat complaint 7 || (Trigon Action”) was only filed after Trigon’s motion to be lead plaintifT in the Federal Action was 8 [rejected The Trigon Action is entirely redundant with the Backer Action, and the proper course of 91} action is to stay or abate Petitioners’ later-filed copycat suit. 10 Petitioners concede that the Trigon Action arises from the same facts, asserts one of the same 11 || evo causes of action, and is brought on behalf of a subset of the Baker Action’s proposed class. Thus, 12 || allowing the Trigon Action to proceed will add nothing to the proceedings except for inefficiencies. 13 || Petitioners contend that these factors militate in favor of coordinating the two actions. They are wrong. 14 || Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, the Trigon Action should be abated in deference to 15 || the earlier-filed Baker Action, Mr. Baker and his counsel are more than capable of representing the 16 | proposed class, Indeed, defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (“DLS”) has filed a motion to stay 17 }| or abate the Petitioners’ action in San Mateo in favor of the Baker Action, arguing that “the Baker court 18 || has the power to litigate all the issues and grant complete relief.” See Declaration of James Q. Taylor- 19 || Copeland in Support of the Opposition to Petition for Coordination by Plaintiff Andrew Baker, Ex. A at 20 5, filed herewith. In the event defendants’ motion is granted this Petition for Coordination will be moot. 2 Accordingly, Petitioners’ request to coordinate the Baker Action in San Mateo should be denied, 22 | In the event these actions are coordinated, plaintiff respectfully submits that the Trigon Action should 23 |e stayed in deference to the Baker Action and the coordination should proceed in San Francisco, the 24 | first-filed forum, OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 4577991