United States of America v. Approximately 69,370 Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Gold (BTG) Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Filing 157

ORDER (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2024)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 20-cv-07811-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER

12

14

APPROXIMATELY 69,370 BITCOIN
(BTC), BITCOIN GOLD (BTG) BITCOIN
SV (BSV) AND BITCOIN CASH (BCH), et
al.,

15

Defendants.

13

16
17

The government initiated this civil forfeiture action against approximately 69,370 Bitcoin,

18

Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, and Bitcoin Cash (“the Property”). Final judgment in favor of the

19

government entered in 2022. The government and various claimants then stipulated that

20

“execution of the final judgment through sale, liquidation, or transfer of the Property should be

21

stayed until all appeals in this matter have been resolved.” See Dkt. No. 133. The Ninth Circuit

22

ultimately affirmed the judgment and the Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of

23

certiorari.

24

Claimants Battle Born Investments Company, LLC, First 100, LLC, and 1st One Hundred

25

Holdings, LLC (“claimants”) now move for a stay of enforcement of the judgment pending

26

resolution of an action they have brought in the United States District Court for the District of

27

Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking disclosure of the identity of “Individual

28

X,” the person who the government alleges stole the Property. See Battle Born Investments Co.,

1

LLC v. United States Department of Justice, No. 24-cv-0067 (BAH) (D.D.C.). Claimants assert

2

that upon learning the identity of “Individual X,” they may be in a position to bring a Rule 60

3

motion to set aside the judgment in this action.
Without having made any assessment of the merits of claimants’ motion, the Court

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5

requests the parties to consider whether it would be appropriate for them to stipulate that

6

government may liquidate some or all of the Property at the government’s discretion, provided

7

that the proceeds from any such liquidation remain subject to the claims asserted by claimants,

8

until the resolution of the FOIA action and any resulting Rule 60(b) motion.1 If the parties submit

9

a stipulation to that effect, the hearing on the stay motion, set for January 9, 2025, will be vacated.

10

If the parties do not agree to such a stipulation, they should be prepared to address at the hearing

11

whether or not the Court has discretion to impose such a condition on any liquidation of the

12

Property, in the event it determines claimants are not otherwise precluded from obtaining relief.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: November 26, 2024
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A stipulation to that effect would appear to mitigate the government’s concerns arising from the
volatility of the Property’s value, as the government would be able to liquidate the Property in
such amounts and at such times as it deemed most beneficial.
1

26
27
28

CASE NO. 20-cv-07811-RS

2