Legal Document: Daniel Ocampo vs Dominic Williams

On July 15, 2021 a was filed involving a dispute between Ocampo, Daniel, and Ah Capital Management, L.L.C., Andreessen Horowitz, Dfinity Stiftung, Dfinity Usa Research Llc, Does 1-20, John Does 1-20, Polychain Capital, Polychain Capital Lp, Williams, Dominic, for Complex Civil Unlimited Class Action in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Michael E. Liftik (CA Bar No. 232430)
Sarah Heaton Concannon (pro hac vice)
1300 I Street, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 538-8000
michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com
sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com

Emily C. Kapur (CA Bar No. 306724)
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Sth Fl.
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com

Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant Dominic Williams and Defendants Dfinity USA
Research, LLC and Dfinity Stiftung
10

11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Case No. 21-CIV-03843
13
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
14 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON
Plaintiff, NTAH
15
v Hon. Susan L. Greenberg
16 Dept. 22 — Ctrm. I
DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021
17 STIFTUNG, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT. Date: January 11, 2024
L.L.C., POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC Time: 9:00a.m. PT
18 WILLIAMS, and JOHN DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
19

28
Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
Mr. Simon Ntah, Partner at Baker McKenzie Switzerland, Geneva, located at Esplanade Pont-

Rouge 2, 1212 Grand-Lancy/Geneva (“Baker McKenzie”) affirms as follows:

I Background and Qualifications
Iam a partner at Baker McKenzie in Geneva, Switzerland, in the Dispute Resolution

Practice Group, since 2020. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, I practiced as a

litigation attorney in Switzerland for over 15 years, including for 10 years as a partner

in a prominent litigation boutique in Geneva.

I obtained my law degree from the University of Geneva in 2003, and subsequently

10 gained admission to the bar of the Canton of Geneva in 2005.

11 Thold an LL.M. from the University of San Diego (2007), as well as an executive

12 MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (2023).

13 Il Scope of Question Presented
14 I have been engaged to address a question related to service of judicial documents as

15 a matter of Swiss domestic law.

16 In particular, my engagement concerns the issue of an attempted service on Mr.

17 Dominic Williams. I have been asked to opine on the following questions: “Was

18 Plaintiff's attempted service on Mr. Dominic Williams proper under Swiss law?”. I

19 am not opining on the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service

20 Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

21 My analysis of this issue is based on my review ofthe document entitled “Proof of

22 service of summons and complaint on defendant Dominic Williams 1 :

27 ' Ex. 1 (Proofof Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Dominic Williams,
dated 3 August, 2022).
28
2 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 Til. Issues of Swiss Law
2 A. Service per art. 138 CPC
Art. 138 of the Swiss Civil Procedural Code (“CPC”) governs the issue of the form of

service (in French: “Notification judiciaire”, “Forme’’).

Art. 138 CPC defines the formalities for service of documents and under which

conditions they are served or are deemed to be served. If the form of service is

complied with, the addressee cannot object that they did not receive the document.

This provision thus ensures that the proceedings are conducted in compliance with

constitutional guarantees, and in particular the right of the parties to be heard.”

10 Art. 138 CPC states as follows:

11 “7 The summons, rulings and decisions are served by registered mail or by other

12 means against confirmation of receipt.
13
2 Service is accomplished when the document has been received by the
14
addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at least 16 years of age
15
living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document must be
16

17 served personally on the addressee.

18 3 Service is also deemed to have been effected:

20
? J. Gschwend, Basler Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), Art. 138, p.
21 2-3 (para. 1) (“Gschwend”) (“Art. 138 regulates - as already partially for the proceedings in
front of the Federal Supreme Court (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art. 44 N 22)- in accordance
22
with the previous case law of the Federal Supreme Court the formalities of service of the
23 documents to be delivered according to art. 136 CPC and determines in particular for the
summonses, orders and decisions to be served (para. 1) under which conditions they are served
24 (para. 2) or are deemed to be served in the sense of a fictitious service (para. 3). If the form of
service is complied with, the addressee can no longer object that he has not received the
25
document (Report on the VE-CPC, 69 on Art. 128). This provision thus ensures that the
26 proceedings can be conducted in compliance with the constitutional guarantees, in particular the
right of the parties to be heard, and can also be duly terminated by the proper service of the
27 final decision. By the fiction of service it prevents that the execution of the proceedings can be
hindered or even made impossible by impossible or thwarted service.”).
28
3 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
a. in the case of a registered letter that has not been collected: on the seventh

day after the failed attempt to serve it provided the person had to expect such

service;

b. in the case of personal service if the addressee refuses to accept service and

if such refusal is recorded by the bearer: on the day of refusal.
3
4 Other documents may be served by regular mail.

Service of summons, rulings and decisions per Art. 138 (2) CPC
10 Art. 138 CPC distinguishes between summonses, orders and decisions (para. 1), and

other documents (para. 4). Paragraph 2, in particular, codifies the established case law

10 on service of summonses, orders and decisions: the document is deemed to have been

11 served when it has either been delivered to the addressee, or to one of their employees

12 or to a person at least 16 years of age living in the same household.*

13 11 What should be deemed as an “employee” is not defined by this provision ofthe

14 CPC. In addition, neither case law nor scholarly writings discuss this point in detail.

15 12 In the absence of a clear indication in the law, case law, or scholarly writing, the

16 dispatch (in French “Message’’), prepared by the Swiss Federal Council, which aims

17 to explain in detail to the Swiss Federal Assembly the purpose of the bill, may

18 provide guidance as to the intent guiding the adoption of a provision. In the present

19 case, with respect to “Art. 134 to 139 Judicial notification”, the dispatch states as

20 follows (emphasis added):°

23
* Ex. 2 (Art. 138 CPC).
24 4 Art. 138 (2) CPC states as follows (emphasis added): “Service is accomplished when the
document has been received by the addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at
25
least 16 years of age living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document
26 must be served personally on the addressee.”
° Ex. 3 (Dispatch of the CPC, dated 28 June 2006).
27

28
4 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
“ [...] Art. 136 [currently Art. 138] regulates the form of the notification

(paragraphs 1 and 2). The document must be delivered directly to the

addressee against an acknowledgement of receipt or to a person close to them

(e.g. their spouse, a domestic employee or a child of 16 years of age or older).

This regulation is consistent with current case law. [...]. ”

13 Therefore, based on the dispatch, a strict approach was envisioned when adopting

Art. 138 (2) CPC. The intent was that service be deemed valid only where

summonses, orders and decisions were delivered to the addressee directly, or to their

domestic employee or to a member of the household over the age of 16.

10 14. Although no case law could be found in this respect, I have considered whether

11 service could be valid where a non-domestic employee of the addressee, such as their

12 personal secretary, receives the documents. In my opinion, even assuming that such

13 a broader approach was admitted (which has never been confirmed), there should be

14 limits in order to comply with the ratio legis of Art. 138 (2) CPC, which aims, first

15 and foremost, at ensuring effective delivery of the document to the addressee.

16 Therefore, in my view, not any employee should be allowed to receive documents for

17 the purpose of Art. 138 (2) CPC. Indeed, case law confirms that even in cases where

18 corporate entities are to be served, it is not the case that simply any employee can

19 receive documents: “in addition to the bodies authorized to represent them,

21
© See for instance N. J. Frei, Berner Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung
22 (2012), Art. 138 ZPO, p. 4 (para. 12) (“If the postal employee does not meet the person
concerned at the address for service, service on an employee or another person living in the
23 same household is possible if this person is at least sixteen years old (e.g. to a spouse, a child or
the secretary, Report of VE-CPC, p. 69).This rule corresponds in principle to previous practice
24 (Dispatch ofthe CPC, p. 7307),even though service on an employee who does not live in the
same household was not considered admissible. However, the wording of the Swiss CPC makes
25
it clear that service may be made either on a sixteen-year-old employee or on a sixteen-year-old
26 person living in the same household. The person does not need to be expressly or tacitly
authorized to receive court documents (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art.44 N 29). On the other
27 hand, service may only be effected at the addressee’s place of residence, e.g. not at the place of
residence of the employee or at the place of work of the person living in the same household as
28 the addressee (DIKE-Huber, art. 138 CPC N 41).”
5 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
v7
employees ofthe lodge service or the secretariat in particular are entitled to

receive documents per 138 (2) CPC, as opposed to, for instance, the gardener of the

company. I do not see why, where individuals, in their personal capacity, are to be

served, the approach should be stricter. In other words, in my view, only those

employees that are the closest to the addressee can comply with the requirements of

Art. 138 (2) CPC. This could for instance be the addressee’s personal assistant.

Improper service

15 In the present case, based on the document I reviewed, I am of the view that Mr.

Dominic Williams was not properly served as a matter of Swiss procedural law.

10 Indeed, I understand that the document to be served was delivered to Ms. Halanouva

11 Adela, i.e., an “office & event manager” of DFINITY Foundation. To my

12 understanding, Ms. Adela is not part of Mr. Dominic Williams’ household. Neither is

13 she employed by Mr. Dominic Williams as a domestic employee or in any other non-

14 domestic capacity that would make her a person “close to him.” In fact, she is not

15 employed by Mr. Dominic Williams at all, since she is employed by DFINITY

16 Foundation. Therefore, delivering the document to Ms. Adela did not comport with

17 the requirements of Art. 138 (2) CPC, and service of the document at hand was

18 invalid.

19 16. In the present case, service was invalid as a matter of Swiss procedural law.

20 7 See for instance Gschwend, p. 5 (para. 12) (“In addition to the addressee, employees or
ersons living in the same household who are at least 16 years old are entitled to accept a
21 Judicial action (para. 2). The provision in para. 2.5.5 of Swiss Post’s General Terms and
Conditions, according to which all persons to be found in the same residence or business
22
domicile are entitled to accept judicial actions (GTC “Postal services” for private customers;
23 “‘https://www.post.ch/de/pages/footer/allgemeine-geschaeftsbedingungen-agb? [as of 17 October
2016]), is probably not applicable in view of the clear wording (Huber, in: Brunner/ Gasser/
24 Schwander, art. 138 N 38 CPC). If the addressee is in a public institution (home, hospital,
prison, etc.), the owner or manager of the institution or his authorized representative is entitled
25 to receive the consignment (BGE 117 II] 5 E. 1 = Pra 1992 no. 166). In the case of BGE 117 III
5, legal persons, in addition to the organs authorized to represent them, employees of the lodge
26
service or the secretariat in particular are also entitled to receive (Gasser/ Rickli, art. 138 CPC N
27 4; Huber in: Brunner/ Gasser/ Schwander, art. 138 CPC N 35). A service on a person who is not
entitled to receive pursuant to art. 138 para. 2 CPC is invalid and must be repeated (BK CPC-
28 Frei, art. 138 N 35).”
6 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct.

Hucgudt
Phe 22 2523 UY,
Sinvo; Metal,
ale

VW
12

21
22

28
7 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
EXHIBIT 1
John T. Jasnoch (CA 281605)
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-233-4565
Facsimile: 619-233-0508
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

Counsel
for Plaintiff Daniel Ocampo

[Additional Counsel on Signature Page.]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

10 DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Behalf Case No. 21-CIV-03843
of All Others Similarly Situated,
11 CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
12 V. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC
13 DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY
STIFTUNG, POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC; WILLIAMS
14 WILLIAMS, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C., and JOHN DOES 1-20,
15 Hon. Danny Y. Chou
Defendants. Dept. 22 — Ctrm. I
16
Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021
17

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
Attestation CERTIFICATE Zustellungszeugnis Attestazione
L'autorité soussignée a I'honneur d'attester conformément & l'article 6 de la dite Convention,
‘THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY HAS THE HONOUR TO CERTIFY, IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION,
Die unterzeichnete Behérde beehrt sich, nach Artikel 6 des Ubereinkommens zu bescheinigen,
Liautorita sottoscritta si pregia attestare in conformita allart. 6 di detta Convenzione,
1. /que la demande a été exécutée" THAT THE DOCU! THAS NS VED!
dass das Ersuchen erledigt worden ist? che la domanda é stata eseguita"
-le (date) THE(DATE) -am (Datum) - il (data) 14.03.2022
~ A (localité, rue, numéro) - AT (PLACE, STREET, NUMBER) Stockerstrasse 47
- in (Ort, Strasse, Nummer) - a (localita, via, numero) 8002 Ziirich
- dans une des formes suivantes prévues a l'article 5: ~ IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS AUTHORISED BY ARTICLE 5:
- in einer der folgenden Formen nach Artikel 5: - in una delle seguenti forme previste dall'articolo 5:
a) ~ selon les formes légales (article 5, alinéa premier, lettre a).
= IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-PARAGRAPH (A) OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION,
- in einer der gesetzlichen Formen (Art. 5 Abs. I Bst. a)».
- secondo le forme di legge (art. 5 comma | lett. a),
b) - selon la forme particuliére suivante”:
- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTICULAR METHOD”:
- in der folgenden besonderen Form’:
- secondo la forma particolare seguente:
¢) - par remise simple”. - BY DELIVERY TO THE ADDRESSEE, WHO ACCEPTED IT VOLUNTARILY!
LD - durch einfache Ubergabe. - mediante semplice consegna".
Les documents mentionnés dans la demande ont été remis a:
THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE REQUEST HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
Die in dem Ersuchen erwéhnten Schriftstiicke sind tibergeben worden an:
I documenti di cui alla domanda sono stati consegnati a:
- (Identité et qualité de la personne): (IDENTITY AND DESCRIPTION OF PERSON): Halounouva Adela
- (Name und Stellung der Person): - (identita e qualita della persona):
- liens de parenté, de subordination ou autres, avec le destinataire de I'acte:
- RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADDRESSEE (FAMILY, BUSINESS OR OTHER): Bevollmachtigter
- Verwandtschafis-, Arbeits- oder sonstiges Verhdltnis zum Zustellungsempftinger:
- rapporto di parentela, di subordinazione od altro, con il destinatario dell'atto:

2. que la demande n‘a pas été exécutée, en raison des faits suivants”;
THAT THE DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED, BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS);
dass das Ersuchen aus folgenden Griinden nicht erledigt werden konnte!):
che la domanda non é stata eseguita, per i seguenti motivi:
Conformément A l'article 12, alinéa 2, de ladite Convention, le requérant est prié de payer ou de rembourser les frais dont le
détail figure au mémoire ci-joint”.
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONVENTION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED TO PAY OR
REIMBURSE THE EXPENSES DETAILED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT).
Nach Artikel 12 Absatz 2 des Ubereinkommens wird die ersuchende Stelle gebeten, die Auslagen, die in der beiliegenden Aufstellung
im einzelnen angegeben sind, zu zahlen oder zu erstatten").
In conformita all'articolo 12 comma 2 di detta Convenzione, il richiedente é pregato di pagare o rimborsare le spese indicate dettaglia-
tamente nella memoria allegata!).
Annexes: ANNEXES: Beilagen: Allegati:
Piéces renvoyées: DOCUMENTS RETURNED:
Zuriickgesandte Schrifistiicke: Atti restituiti:
Le cas échéant, les documents justificatifs de l'exécution: IN APPROPRIATE CASES, DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING THE SERVICE:
Gegebenenfalls Erledigungsstiicke: Se del caso, gli atti che ne comprovano I'esecuzione:

Fait a DONE AT Ausgefertigt in Fatto a Ziirich le THE am il 29.03.2022

Signature et cachet SIGNATURE AND STAMP
Unterschrift und Stempel Firma e timbro

Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich
International Legal Assistai
Hirschengraben 15

8021 Zurich (Switzerland)
LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES
A Division of ALS International, Inc. Telephone (913) 341-3167
8014 State Line Road Toll Free (800) 755-5775
Suite 110 Telefax (913) 341-3168
Leawood, KS 66208 www. legallanguage.com

February 22, 2022 _ VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

HAGUE CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR THE CANTON OF ZURICH
Obergericht des Kantons Zitrich
Zentralbehdrde Rechtshilfe Zivilsachen
Hirschengraben 15
8021 Ziirich
SWITZERLAND

Dear Sirs:

On behalf of our client, I have the honor to transmit to you a Request pursuant to the 1965 Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial
Matters:

Applicant: Tom R, McLean, Esq.
LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES
Plaintiff(s): DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated
Defendant(s): DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, et al.
Case No.: 21-CIV-03843
Method of Service: (a) In accordance with Swiss law for service of documents in its territory.

The Request is being forwarded to you in duplicate. Mr. McLean is requesting Service of Process pursuant
to Article 5, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of the [lague Service Convention.

The persons and entities within the United States competent to forward service requests pursuant to Article
3 include any court official, any attorney, or any other person or entity authorized by the rules of the court.
(See US. declarations to the 1965 Convention at the Hague Conference website:
https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=279)

We would very much appreciate if you could inform us via fax at 913-341-3168 or via email at
vportuguez@legallanguage.com of the date of service of the documents upon the Defendant.

lease do not Sital or e-mail me if you have questions or concerns. Thank you in
advance for your assistahce and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES
A Division of ALS International, Inc.

Victoria Portuguez
International Litigation Support Services

Enclosures
Ss
o¥
42"

oft
oe
oye &
Oss
“eP
>
_

Case No.: 21-CIV-03843
NOTICE
(recommended by the Fourteenth Session of
Hague Conference of October, 1980)

identité et adresse du destinataire
identity and address of the addressee

Dominic WILLIAMS
Dfinity Stiftung
Stockerstrasse 47
8002 Zurich
SWITZERLAND

TRES IMPORTANT

LE DOCUMENT CL-JOINT EST DE NATURE JURIDIQUE ET PEUT AFFECTER VOS DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS. LES "ELEMENTS
ESSENTIELS DE L'ACTE" VOUS DONNENT QUELQUES INFORMATIONS SUR SA NATURE ET SON OBJET. IL EST TOUTEFOIS
INDISPENSABLE DE LIRE ATTENTIVEMENT LE TEXTE MEME DU DOCUMENT. IL PEUT BTRE NECESSAIRE DE DEMANDER
UN AVIS JURIDIQUE.

SI VOS RESSOURCES SONT INSUFFISANTES, RENSEIGNEZ-VOUS SUR LA POSSIBILITE D'OBTENIR L'ASSISTANCE JUDICIAIRE
ET LA CONSULTATION JURIDIQUE SOIT DANS VOTRE PAYS SOIT DANS LE PAYS D'ORIGINE DU DOCUMENT.

LES DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES POSSIBILITES D'OBTENIR L'ASSISTANCE JUDICIAIRE OU LA
CONSULTATION JURIDIQUE DANS LE PAYS D'ORIGINE DU DOCUMENT PEUVENT ETRE ADRESSEES :

Bay Area Legal Aid
1048 El Camino Real, Suite A
Redwood City, California 94063
USA.
Tel. 1.650.358.0745

IMPORTANT

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT IS OF A LEGAL NATURE AND MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. THE
“SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT TO BE SERVED" WILL GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ITS NATURE
AND PURPOSE.
YOU SHOULD, HOWEVER, READ THE DOCUMENT ITSELF CAREFULLY. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.

IF YOUR FINANCIAL RESOURCES ARE INSUFFICIENT YOU SHOULD SEEK INFORMATION ON THE POSSIBILITY
OF
OBTAINING LEGAL AID OR ADVICE EITHER IN THE COUNTRY WHERE YOU LIVE OR IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE
DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED.

ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL AID OR ADVICE IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED
MAY BE DIRECTED TO:

Bay Area Legal Aid
1048 El Camino Real, Suite A
Redwood City, California 94063
USA.
Tel. 1.650.358.0745
I, John T. Jasnoch, am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the

age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,

600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101. My electronic service address is jjasnoch@scott-

scott.com.

On August 3, 2022, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, on the interested

parties in this action, as follows:

xX By Electronic Filing

I caused said document(s) to be filed electronically using One Legal, an electronic filing

service provider of the Superior Court of San Mateo County; and

10 xX By Electronic Mail

11 I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by electronic mail. The name(s) and email

12 address(es) of the person(s) served are set forth in the attached Service List. The document

13 was transmitted by electronic transmission and without error.

15 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true

16 and correct.

17 Executed on this 3rd day of August, 2022, at San Diego, California.

20 JOHN T. JASNGCH 7

28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
SERVICE LIST
Daniel Ocampo v. Dfinity USA Research LLC, et al., Case No. 21-CIV-03843

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:

NAME FIRM EMAIL
John T. Jasnoch SCOTT + SCOTT jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-233-4565
619-233-0508 (fax)

Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel
Ocampo
Sean T. Masson SCOTT + SCOTT smasson@scott-scott.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
10 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
11 Telephone: 212-223-6444
212-223-6334 (fax)
12
Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel
13 Ocampo

14
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

NAME FIRM EMAIL
16
Alexander Mills CRAVATH, SWAINE amills@cravath.com
17 Kevin J. Orsini & MOORE LLP korsini@cravath.com
Antony L. Ryan Worldwide Plaza aryan@cravath.com
18 825 Eighth Avenue
Lauren M. Rosenberg New York, NY 10019- lrosenberg@cravath.com

19 7475
Telephone: 212-474-
20 1000
212-474-3700 (fax)
21
Counsel for Dfinity USA
22 Research LLC
Michael Liftik QUINN EMANUEL michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com
23 Sarah Heaton URQUHART & sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com
Concannon SULLIVAN, LLP
24 1300 I Street, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
25 Telephone: 202-538-
8000
26
Counsel for Dfinity USA
27 Research LLC

28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
Emily Kapur QUINN EMANUEL emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com
URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Sth Floor
Redwood Shores, CA
94065
Telephone: 650-801-
5000

Counsel for Dfinity USA
Research LLC
Brenna Nelinson QUINN EMANUEL brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com
URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue,
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
10 Telephone: 212-849-
7000
11
Counsel for Dfinity USA
12 Research LLC
Peter R. Boutin KEESAL, YOUNG & peter.boutin@kyl.com
13 Christopher A. LOGAN christopher.stecher@kyl.com
Stecher 450 Pacific Avenue
14
San Francisco, CA
15 94133
Telephone: 415-398-
16 6000

17 Counsel for Defendant
18 Polychain Capital LP
Roger Cooper CLEARY GOTTLIEB racooper@cgsh.com
19 Jared Gerber STEEN & HAMILTON jgerber@cgsh.com
LLP
20 One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
21
Telephone: 212-225-
22 2283

23 Of Counsel for
Defendant Polychain
24 Capital LP
25

28
3
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
1 Matthew Rawlinson LATHAM & matthew.rawlinson@lw.com
WATKINS LLP
2 140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 650-463-
3076
650-463-2600 (fax)

Counsel
for AH Capital
Management, L.L.C.
Susan Engel LATHAM & susan.engel@lw.com
WATKINS LLP 555
Eleventh Street, NW,
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C.
20004-1304 Telephone:
202-637-2200
202-637-2201 (fax)
10
Counsel
for AH Capital
11 Management, L.L.C.
Benjamin Naftalis LATHAM & benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
Gregory Mortenson WATKINS LLP 1271 gregory.mortenson@lw.com
Avenue of the Americas
13 New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-906-
14 1200
212-751-4864 (fax)
15
Counsel
for AH Capital
16 Management, L.L.C.

18 COURT:

19 Court Address Email
San Mateo County Superior Court Department 22 — dept22@sanmateocourt.org
20 — Judge Danny Y. Chou Courtroom I complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
1050 Mission Road
21
South San Francisco,
22 CA 94080

28
4
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
EXHIBIT 2
Civil Procedure Code 272

Section 4 Service of Process

Art. 136 Documents to be served
The court shall serve the persons concerned in particular with
a. the summons;
b. rulings and decisions;
c the submissions of the opposing party.

Art. 137 Service to a representative
If a party is represented, service is made to the representative

Art. 138 Form
! The summons, rulings and decisions are served by registered mail or by other means
against confirmation of receipt.
2 Service is accomplished when the document has been received by the addressee or
one of his or her employees or a person of at least 16 years of age living in the same
household, unless the court instructs that a document must be served personally on
the addressee.
3 Service is also deemed to have been effected:
a. in the case of a registered letter that has not been collected: on the seventh day
after the failed attempt to serve it provided the person had to expect such ser-
vice;
in the case of personal service if the addressee refuses to accept service and if
such refusal is recorded by the bearer: on the day of refusal.
4 Other documents may be served by regular mail.

Art. 13952 Electronic service
! With the consent of the person concerned, summonses, rulings and decisions may
be served electronically. They must bear an electronic signature in accordance with
the Federal Act of 18 March 201653 on Electronic Signatures.
2 The Federal Council regulates:
a. the signature to be used;
b. the format for summonses, rulings and decisions and their attachments;
Cc. the method of transmission;

52 Amended by Annex No II 5 of the FA of 18 March 2016 on Electronic Signatures, in
force since 1 Jan. 2017 (AS 2016 4651; BBI 2014 1001).
53 SR 943.03

31/122
EXHIBIT 3
Lorsque la partie est représentée, les actes sont notifiés & son représentant (art, 135).
Une notification personnelle a la partie représentée n’est pas prévue (voir par contre
art. 129, al. 2, AP). Il peut en effet étre exigé du représentant qu’il informe la per-
sonne qwil représente dune citation, Le tribunal n’a pas a s’en charger. Ce systéme
est connu des procédures cantonales (p. ex., art. 108 CPC/BE; art. 74 CPC/LU;
art. 72 CPC/VD; art. 17 CPC/GE).
L’art. 136 régle la forme de la notification (al. J et 2). Il s’agit de remettre l’acte
directement au destinataire contre accusé de réception ou A une personne de son
entourage (p. ex., son conjoint, un employé de maison ou un enfant Agé de 16 ans
révolus). Cette réglementation est conforme a la jurisprudence actuelle!s!. Le tribu-
nal peut ordonner que l’acte soit notifié personnellement au destinataire (al. 2,
2¢ phr.). Cette possibilité peut en particulier étre indiquée dans les litiges de droit de
la famille. L’a/. 3 pose enfin les conditions de la fiction de notification. Les situa-
tions décrites correspondent la jurisprudence constante.!52
Le tribunal peut notifier des actes par voie électronique, ce qui lui permet de réduire
ses frais administratifs (a 137), Le consentement préalable de la personne concer-
née est cependant requis (al. 1). Il se limite en principe au procés en cours. Mais il
peut également avoir une portée générale s’agissant par exemple d’avocats ayant
faire réguligrement avec les autorités judiciaires. La solution proposée est identique
4 lorganisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 60 LTF). La notification par voie électroni-
que est également rendue possible pour les autorités du droit de la poursuite et de la
faillite (art. 34 P-LP, ch. 17 de I’annexe).
La notification d’un acte a I’étranger peut étre longue et compliquée surtout si aucun
accord international ne sapplique (art. 2). De ce fait, en vertu de l'art. 138, les
parties domiciliées a l’étranger peuvent étre contraintes 4 élire domicile en Suisse
par le tribunal. Le projet répond ainsi 4 un veeu exprimé lors de la consultation.
L’art. 139, al. 1 décrit les situations ov la notification peut se faire par voie édictale.
Le projet énumére les cas typiques bien connus (let. a, b et c).

5.9.3 Délais, défaut et restitution

Art. 140 a 142 Computation, observation et prolongation des délais
Le projet reprend les régles de procédure usuelles en la matiére:
_ Les régles sur le début et la computation d’un délai ont été coordonnées
avec l’organisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 140; voir art. 44 et 45 LTF).
L’al. 3 se référe au siége du tribunal en ce qui concerne les jours fé Le
fait que la réglementation des jours fériés peut différer d’une région a l'autre
d’un méme canton est ainsi pris en compte. Sont par ailleurs inclus tant les
jours fériés égaux que ceux qui y sont assimilés, conformément a l’art. 5 de
la convention européenne du 16 mai 1972 sur la computation des délais
(RS 0.221.122.3)!53,

Is Voirp. ex., ATF 130 III 396; 122 1 97; arrét du 18 octobre 1999 dans l’affaire K. c.
Procureur général du canton de Berne, SJ 2000, p. 118 ss.
152 P. ex., ATF 127 III 173; 122 III 316.
13 Voir ATF 124 II 527.

6918

Case Info

Judge

Greenberg, Susan Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 18, 2023

Case Filing Date

July 15, 2021

County

Parties

AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. Defendant
Andreessen Horowitz Defendant
Dfinity Stiftung Defendant
Dfinity USA Research LLC Defendant
DOES 1-20 Defendant
JASNOCH, JOHN T Attorney for the Plaintiff
JOHN DOES 1-20 Defendant
LIFTIK, MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendant
Ocampo, Daniel Plaintiff
Polychain Capital Defendant
Polychain Capital LP Defendant
RAWLINSON, MATTHEW Attorney for the Defendant
STECHER, CHRISTOPHER A. Attorney for the Defendant
Williams, Dominic Defendant
Emily Kapur Attorneys for Defendants
Peter Boutin Attorneys for Defendants
Spencer Burkholz Attorney
Thomas Egler Attorney
Scott Saham Attorney
Nathan Lindell Attorney
Brian Barry Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lionel Glancy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joseph Russell Attorneys for Defendants
Stephen Blake Attorneys for Defendants
Jonathan Sanders Attorneys for Defendants
William Son Attorney
David Parker Attorney
Abe Levin Attorney
Howard Strong Attorney
Craig Hansen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ivy Ngo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephen Yagman Attorney
John Frank Attorney
Michael Cohen Attorney
William Roche Attorney
Mark Molumphy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alexandra Summer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephanie Biehl Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tamarah Prevost Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Daniel Ocampo vs Dominic Williams

Preview

Case Info

Parties