On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted motions to dismiss filed by Euclid Labs Inc., the company behind the Magic Eden cryptocurrency platform, and its co-founder Zhuoxun Yin in a proposed class action lawsuit over the collapse of the $ME digital token.
U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan ruled that a class action waiver buried in the terms and conditions of Euclid’s digital wallet stripped the court of jurisdiction over the claims against the company, while separately finding that plaintiff Jaime Pagan failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Yin in New York.
The lawsuit, filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, accused Euclid and several executives of deceptive business practices under New York consumer protection law after the value of $ME, Magic Eden’s native token, plummeted roughly 98%, from $5.63 to $0.12. According to the complaint, Euclid had promoted the token’s uses, including cross-blockchain functionality, governance rights, buybacks and staking rewards, while privately preparing a business pivot that undercut those promises.
Court records show Euclid’s CEO, Tan Lu, announced in 2026 that the company would shift focus to a new crypto casino and sportsbook venture called Dicey. As part of that pivot, Euclid limited $ME to a single blockchain, discontinued planned buybacks, and shut down its proprietary digital wallet, which the complaint described as the gateway through which users accessed the token and its airdrop rewards. Pagan alleged he lost roughly $2,000 after being unable to sell his tokens because they were locked in staking at the time of the announcement.
In dismissing the claims against Euclid, Judge Cogan found that the wallet’s terms of service, which Pagan had agreed to and relied on extensively in his complaint, were “integral” to the case and could therefore be considered on a motion to dismiss despite not being attached to the complaint. The waiver barred users from bringing disputes against Euclid as part of a class, consolidated or representative proceeding, and the court concluded that provision applied to Pagan’s claims, eliminating the jurisdictional basis he needed under CAFA.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding Yin, finding that the waiver’s language limited it to disputes between signatories and did not extend to individual executives. However, Cogan separately dismissed the claims against Yin for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling that Pagan had not shown Yin made any actionable misrepresentations directed at or heard in New York. The court noted that specific statements attributed to Yin, regarding Euclid’s valuation and fundraising totals, were not alleged to be false.
Because the jurisdictional issues were dispositive, the court did not address the defendants’ alternative arguments that the complaint failed to state a claim. Two of the three original named plaintiffs, who had no connection to New York, had previously had their claims dismissed without prejudice by consent of the parties.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment