Tarverdiyeva
Tarverdiyeva v. Coinbase, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 RAHILA TARVERDIYEVA, on behalf of herself, and VIJAY TANDON, as 11 permissive joinder, No. C 22-05468 WHA
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE JUDGMENT
14 COINBASE, INC., COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., PHILLIP MARTIN, and MATTHEW 15 MULLER, 16 Defendants.
17 18 Just short of a year after the dismissal of this action and the entry of judgment, plaintiffs 19 move to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(3). This order follows full briefing and finds 20 the motion suitable for disposition on the papers under Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing is 21 VACATED. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. 22 In her second lawsuit against defendant Coinbase, Inc., plaintiff Rahila Tarverdiyeva, 23 now permissively joined by her husband, plaintiff Vijay Tandon, accuses various Coinbase 24 entities of intentional misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, conversion, violations of the 25 Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and fraud based on alleged violations of the applicable user 26 …