## Facts

- Individual investors contributed cryptocurrency to fund a planned initial coin offering (ICO) and related venture marketed as the “Monkey Capital Market,” including a private exchange and decentralized hedge fund.
- The venture promoted tokens referred to as “Monkey Coin” and “Coeval,” offered for sale nationwide through electronic communications.
- The promised ICO did not occur; the status of the platform’s development was unknown, and investors alleged their funds were improperly retained by those operating the project.
- Daniel Harrison allegedly created and controlled Monkey Capital, LLC and Monkey Capital, Inc., and solicited investors in advance of a July 2017 ICO.
- The token offering was not registered with the SEC, and plaintiffs contended no exemption applied.
- The corporate entities previously suffered final default judgments and damages awards; Harrison remained the only active defendant and proceeded pro se.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the court issued a Rule 56 notice explaining Harrison’s obligations to present admissible evidence.
- Harrison opposed summary judgment and separately sought “Immediate and Urgent” subpoenas to non-parties.

## Issues

1. Whether the record showed no genuine dispute of material fact and entitled plaintiffs to summary judgment against Harrison on federal securities-law claims arising from the token offering.
2. Whether Harrison’s opposition papers identified record evidence sufficient to create a triable dispute under Rule 56, notwithstanding his pro se status.
3. Whether Harrison was entitled to expedited subpoenas to non-parties to obtain evidence purportedly relevant to summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against Harrison.
- The court held that the undisputed record supported liability for offering and selling unregistered securities in connection with the Monkey Capital tokens.
- The court found Harrison’s response did not point to competent evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as required by Rule 56.
- The court denied Harrison’s motion for immediate subpoenas, finding the request speculative and not tied to specific evidence that would defeat summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is required when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must cite specific record evidence rather than conclusory assertions.
- Under the Howey test, tokens can qualify as “investment contracts” where purchasers invest value (including cryptocurrency) in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others.
- An offer or sale of securities must be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 unless an exemption applies; participation and control over an unregistered offering can support individual liability.
- Pro se status does not relieve a party from complying with Rule 56 evidentiary requirements.
- Discovery requests intended to oppose summary judgment must identify concrete, relevant evidence likely to create a genuine issue; speculative subpoenas may be denied.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment against the alleged organizer and controller of an ICO project, concluding that the marketed tokens constituted unregistered securities and that the defendant failed to present record evidence creating a genuine factual dispute; it also denied a late-stage subpoena request that lacked a specific evidentiary basis.


Hodges v. Harrison, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2019)