Order | Filed: September 28, 2026
Murphy et al v. Phantom Technologies, Inc. et al
Securities/Commodities | New York Southern
Order
OPINION & ORDER re: 31 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and otherwise Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Phantom Technologies, Inc., 19 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel filed by Phantom Technologies, Inc., For the reasons set forth above, Phantom's motion to compel arbitration or otherwise dismiss the Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part. As to Murphy, he must arbitrate all of his claims against Phantom, and so the Court declines to reach Phantom' s arguments to dismiss on the merits. As to the Token Holder Plaintiffs, they lack standing to bring their claims as pied, and so again the Court need not reach Phantom's arguments to dismiss on the merits. Accordingly, the motion to disquali fy counsel at Dkt. No. 19 is DENIED AS MOOT.As part of the relief sought, Phantom requested a stay of the action pending arbitration. Section 3 of the FAA provides that "upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration," the Court "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been held in accordance with the terms of the agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 3; see also Katz v. Cellco P'ship, 794 F.3d 341, 347 (2d Cir. 2015) (The FAA "mandate[s] a stay of proceedings when all of the claims in an action have been referred to arbitration and a stay requested."). The Court will therefore stay this action pendi ng the arbitration, and, once the stay is lifted, set an appropriate schedule for the Token Holder Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint if they believe they can demonstrate standing consistent with the analysis in this Opinion. The parties are hereb y ORDERED to file a joint status letter within seven days of the arbitration occurring or by March 22, 2027, whichever is sooner, updating the Court on the status of arbitration. Finally, Murphy is ORDERED to file a letter by no later than October 8 , 2026 describing what efforts, if any, he has made to serve Defendant Ryduchowski. If that letter does not establish efforts at service that suffice to show due diligence, the Court may dismiss Defendant Ryduchowski from this lawsuit for failure to serve. See USHA (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 129, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2005). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to (1) terminate Dkt. Nos. 19 and 31; (2) dismiss the claims of all Plaintiffs except Thomas Liam Murphy a nd terminate them from the docket; and (3) mark this case STAYED pending arbitration. SO ORDERED. Sara Jessica-Dilks, Traviis Massengale, Mark Miranda, James Morgan, Joy Morgan, Graham Murphy ("Mickey"), Alex Perry (Esq.), Trevor Perry (Esq.), Walker Post, Gabrielle Reed, Charles Sustaita, Jeffrey Allton and Cassidy Hooper terminated., Case stayed. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 9/28/2026) (mml)