Tarverdiyeva v. Coinbase, Inc. ( 2024 )

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 agreement. Plaintiffs filed suit in this district one week before plaintiff Tarverdiyeva 27 voluntarily dismissed her first lawsuit against Coinbase in the Middle District of Florida — and 1 Here, a December 2022 order dismissed this second lawsuit under the doctrine of res judicata 2 (Dkt. No. 22). 3 Rule 60(b)(3) provides that “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from 4 a final judgment” on the basis of “fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 5 party.” The movant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the judgment was 6 “obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained 7 of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” De Saracho v. 8 Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs have not met their 9 burden here. 10 Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made false statements and mischaracterized 11 the scope of plaintiff Tarverdiyeva’s prior litigation in Florida (see, e.g., Reply Br. 4). 12 According to plaintiffs, “unequivocal evidence directly contradicts alleged facts used to 13 support a legal argument or court’s previous analysis,” and defendants need further evidentiary 14 support to show that the district court in Florida “substantively adjudicated the fraud-based 15 allegations” (ibid.). Not so. Even though plaintiff Tarverdiyeva voluntarily dismissed the 16 Florida action, a binding decision compelling arbitration had already issued. See Tarverdiyeva 17 v. Coinbase Glob., Inc., No. C 21-01717 MSS (M.D. Fla.). Defendants have not made false 18 statements. Rather, they have accurately characterized the decision in the Middle District of 19 Florida and its preclusive effect here. 20 Plaintiffs complain that the Florida decision did not fully resolve the merits of their 21 claims. But our court of appeals has made clear that the district court’s “role is strictly limited 22 to determining arbitrability and enforcing agreements to arbitrate, leaving the merits of the 23 claim and any defenses to the arbitrator.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 24 207 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 25 937 F.2d 469, 478 (9th Cir. 1991)). Defendants do not “overstate what an [sic] reasonably be 26 interpreted from these orders,” as plaintiffs contend (Reply Br. 4). The district court in Florida 27 compelled arbitration of all of plaintiff Tarverdiyeva’s claims. As such, it did not (and could 1 Similarly, this district court examined whether plaintiff Tarverdiyeva’s latest suit was 2 barred by res judicata. Plaintiffs allege that the December 2022 order relied on “Defendants’ 3 misleading statement concerning issue preclusion, rather than independently verifying whether 4 the precise matters at hand truly faced adjudication earlier” (ibid.). Again, plaintiffs seek 5 merits rulings that the circumstances do not allow. The December 2022 order considered 6 plaintiff Tarverdiyeva’s previous action and, as explained therein, examination of its preclusive 7 effect was all that was called for (see Dkt. No. 22 at 5-6). Plaintiffs have not shown, by clear 8 and convincing evidence, that the judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or 9 other misconduct, and that this prevented them from fully and fairly presenting the defense. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2024. | as Pee = 17 = LLIAM ALSUP 4 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28