21 Plaintiffs Urge Court to Deny Atomic Co-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

The 21 plaintiffs who seek to hold cryptocurrency exchange platform Atomic Wallet and its co-defendants accountable for the June 3 hack that resulted in the loss of more than $100 million in global crypto assets (see 2306220003) urge U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer for Colorado in Denver to deny co-defendant Evercore’s Oct. 27 motion to dismiss their first amended complaint (see 2310300012), said their opposition Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01582). Evercore seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, 12(b)(5) for improper service of process and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. But contrary to the Evercore’s assertions, the service of process was “correctly effectuated” on Evercore on Sept. 15, said the plaintiffs’ opposition. According to Evercore’s own website, its office is located at the Hong Kong address where service was made. Moreover, not only do Evercore and Atomic share the same Hong Kong office, “but they also share the same executives and shareholders,” it said. “The law recognizes that service upon an affiliate or related entity of a defendant is valid when it is reasonable to assume that such an entity would have notice of the lawsuit,” it said. Evercore was served at its listed Hong Kong address, was made aware of the legal action brought against it and immediately retained counsel, it said: “Courts have consistently upheld such service under similar circumstances, as it aligns with the fundamental purpose of service of process -- to provide fair notice to the defendant.”