Resolves YES if Sokolowski v. Digital Currency Group, Inc., 4:25-cv-00001, (M.D. Penn.) survives defendants' motion to dismiss (e.g., 12(b)(6) or a bankruptcy related motion), In the event that such a motion is granted in part, I will resolve to a % based off of the number of defendants and claims remaining (e.g., a MTD which results in the dismissal of 2 of 3 parties will result in a 33% resolution).
Resolves NO if a motion is granted in full; or plaintiffs dismiss the suit with or without prejudice prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion.
The docket can be found here (or on PACER here). A copy of the original complaint can be found here.
The MTD by defendants Silbert and DCG (ECF 16) is available here. (Mooted by amended complaint but should represent closely the pending brief on renewed MTD)
1,000People are also trading
@SteveSokolowski "survive a motion to dismiss" means to get beyond the motion to dismiss stage, which will never ever ever happen.
@SteveSokolowski Disagree. You haven't "survived" a motion to dismiss by being allowed to file an Amended Complaint that will eventually be dismissed. PS. Please unblock me.
@FrederickNorris Complaints are amended all the time. That's not what the market states - it asked whether a motion to dismiss will be survived.
Nice try, but you lost :) And there's a reason you lost - the case has merit.
@SteveSokolowski This case is not going to survive a motion to dismiss. You will never get to the discovery phase, and there is a reason. Your new Complaint, alleging that you are reading numerically coded messages, is "out there" to put it mildly.
@SteveSokolowski I just read the R&R. The fact that you aren't chastened whatsoever by this, and think it indicates this case has merit, is instructive on your state of mind.
As to this market, the motions to dismiss being moot, because your pleading is garbage and has to be re-done, isn't a Win for you. Sorry.
@SteveSokolowski @kopecs @FrederickNorris I think that if you file an amended complaint and it's so good that the defendant's don't file a motion to dismiss, but instead file an ANSWER, then this market resolves YES. Just for the record, I have a small position on YES.
A more interesting, but unlikely scenario, is that when you attempt to file a "short and concise" complaint, that the court sua sponte dismisses it, because then it won't be dismissed under a 12(b)(6) motion. The way that I read the R&R is that unless the Sokolowski Brothers get a lawyer, you are out of luck. I hear good things about Block Chain Law though. Really aggressive and tenacious litigators.
@KevinBlaw The R&R absolutely sets up the possibility of a sua sponte dismissal based on FRCP 8. But that would not be "surviving" a motion to dismiss.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/business/lawyers-ai-vigilantes.html
It's not just pro se Sokolowski's submitting AI slop.
I think the news will be the fraudsters won because he’s thrown in the towel to exploit the growing AI Halloween music market that all today’s kids can’t get enough of.
@kopecs Gave it another go while I had some downtime: looks like it is 25-01111-shl Digital Currency Group, Inc. v. Vincent Falco et al
@kopecs @FrederickNorris He was also sued in state court by Wells Fargo for his unpaid $19,000 credit card bill about a week ago: https://civil.centrecountypa.gov/courts.civil.portal/Attachments/GetAttachmentById?id=1024204&caseID=204691
@kopecs It will be somewhere on there, not as easy to find. You'll have to wade through a lot of docket entries.
@KevinBlaw Hmm, turns out bragging about netting $.75M in BTC profit, having an interest in a paid off house, and bragging about it all over the internet isn't a great way to get a creditor to ignore what you owe them! (Neither is suing them for some frivolous BS either, I guess.)
@kopecs I can’t make heads or tails of this but I also don’t want to sink my life into it. Seems like they are saying the bankruptcy process is the only proper venue and that Soko isn’t even the right party to pursue this.
@KevinBlaw The adversarial proceeding is basically (1) only the debtors (in a collective sense) are allowed to sue us; (2) Steve, and this other guy Falco, are trying to sue individually; (3) this is incompatible w/ the bankruptcy since they're just trying to end-run around a fair division to creditors.
So different sort of "wrong party to sue us" argument. More so "get in line with everybody else" (with the caveat that at least Steve can't, since he sold his ticket in line already)
@kopecs if AI can get its head around the bankruptcy code enough to make a coherent response, I will be impressed.
I see in the docket in the case at hand, that the Defendants have put the court on notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. I expect that there is going to be a stay issued in the district court and that the motion to dismiss may never be decided. I guess that would warrant an N/A resolution?
Funny to imagine the Soko brothers driving to the southern district of New York to file their latest missive. The cost in tolls and parking alone makes me chuckle.